Widest angle lens available for 11x14

[TStodPhoto]

I finally got my 11x14 Empire State Restored... I want to shoot the widest angle lens possible with it can anyone recommend a lens for it? I love wide angle and the aspects of it... Its just amazing to me.... Any help would be greatly appreciated... Im not really into that much movements but some will help...Thanks

 

[Ole]

The 11x14" needs something like 450mm image circle.

Roghly speaking, 135 degrees coverage is 5x focal length, 110 degrees is 3x, 100 degrees is 2.4x and 90 degrees is 2x.

There is only one 135 degree lens, the Goerz Hypergon. The 9cm Hypergon should cover.

There are several 110 degree lenses, both modern and classic. At 100 degrees you would need a 188mm lens to cover, so a 210mm Super-Angulon or Super-Symmar XL have coverage to spare. More "limited" is the old 210 Angulon - the coverage was said to be 100 degrees in the 1930's, while today Schneider says it's 80 degrees. I use mine on 12x16"...

There are also a lot of old WA Aplanats and Anastigmats you might consider, especially as most of them will cost less than $50. I've used a 150mm WA Aplanat on 9.5x12" (24x30cm, diagonal 360mm) film with good results. So a 19cm Busch WA Aplanat should just do it

 

[Roger Hicks]

Are we talking absolutes or affordables? My 7-1/4 inch/184mm f/16 Ross Wide Angle Anastigmat covers 11x14 inch OK, but it's stretched at 12x15 inch.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[jp80874]

Here is a link to a 74 post thread (at this moment) on 7x17 lenses. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/search.php?searchid=281367
As Ole said 11x14 uses a 450mm image circle. 7x17 needs 466mm. You may find the extensive lists and debate useful for this question and many others related to your lens needs. I have found it so for my 7x17 education.

Enjoy,

John Powers

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Hypergon that Ole mentions is probably the widest, if you can find one and can afford it. Occasionally one sees a "skyscraper camera" designed to shoot just this lens.

The widest lens I use on 11x14" is the 10" Wide-Field Ektar, which isn't too hard to find.

 

[Donsta]

I frequently use a Computar 240mm (most Kowa Graphic 240mms are identical). A 210mm Computar just covers too. I recently took a shot with my Schneider 150mm XL stopped way down (f64) and it covers - even with the necessary center filter in place. It is extremely wide though and probably not feasible on a lot of 11x14s due to bellows compression. However, the resulting image was plenty sharp enough for an Azo contact print to appear perfectly sharp in the corners - I was astounded that it not only covered, but also how sharp it stayed into the corners.

The 240mm Computar (or Kowa) is an outstanding 11x14 wide angle - there's a bit of room for movements at typical shooting apertures too and it is razor sharp.

 

[sanking]

I frequently use a Computar 240mm (most Kowa Graphic 240mms are identical). A 210mm Computar just covers too. I recently took a shot with my Schneider 150mm XL stopped way down (f64) and it covers - even with the necssary center filter in place. It is extremely wide though and probably not feasible on a lot of 11x14s due to bellows compression. However, the resulting image was plenty sharp enough for an Azo contact print to appear perfectly sharp in the corners - I was astounded that it not only covered, but also how sharp it stayed into the corners.

The 240mm Computar (or Kowa) is an outstanding 11x14 wide angle - there's a bit of room for movements at typical shooting apertures too and it is razor sharp.

There are quite a number of choices, but in the extreme wide angle arena, old or new, choices are going to be very, very expensive. Anyone know the going price of a 135mm Goerz Hypergon?

One reasonbaly common old lens that you might consider is the 8X10, or 183mm, Series V Protar, either Zeiss or B&L. Mine just barely misses on 7X17 but would definitely cover 11X14. Stopped down of course. 210mm Series V Protar would also cover, but it will also cover 12X20 and decent people would kill for them. The 210mm Computar covers (just) , and is very small. The 210mm Super Angulon covers with lots of movement, but is very big. At 240mm the Computar covers with a lot of movement also, but this is getting out of the widest coverage possible. 240mm (9 1/2") Dagor will also cover (at least some of them) but performance on the edges will be poor, even stopped down. But one of my favorite images of all time, one that I show a lot, was made on 11X14 with a very, very old Goerz Berlin Doppel Anastigmat.

All in all I would say that the 183 (8X10) Series Protar is best value when extreme coverage and price are weighed. But, while not rare, you won't find one of these every day either. Or, if 240mm is ok, try to find one of those Kowa Grahic mentioned by Don that could be of Computar design.


Sandy King

 

[sanking]

Are we talking absolutes or affordables? My 7-1/4 inch/184mm f/16 Ross Wide Angle Anastigmat covers 11x14 inch OK, but it's stretched at 12x15 inch.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Roger,

Do you know the desgin of the 184mm f16 Ross Wide Angle Anastigmat? Ross made a lot of lens of Anastigmat name that were really Protars. Sounds like this one may be same as the 8X10 or 183 f/18 Series V Protar?

Sandy

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

Do you know the desgin of the 184mm f16 Ross Wide Angle Anastigmat? Ross made a lot of lens of Anastigmat name that were really Protars. Sounds like this one may be same as the 8X10 or 183 f/18 Series V Protar?

Sandy

Dear Sandy,

(Picks up lens from desk; unscrews front cell). From the reflections it looks liike a 4-glass symmetrical in two cemented doublets: I can't see the reflections I'd expect from 2x triplets, nor does the cell look thick enough, but of course it's TINY: the front and rear glasses are each about the size of my thumbnail. It's probably in the Vademecum.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ole]

The Zeiss Weitwinkel-Protar F/18 is a 2+2. No triplets. So the Ross lens is probably one of those.

Hypergon: They were made in 6, 7.5, 9, 12, 15 and 20cm focal lengths. So Sandy, there is no going rate for a 135mm!

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Zeiss Weitwinkel-Protar F/18 is a 2+2. No triplets. So the Ross lens is probably one of those.

Dear Ole,

Thanks. I was clearly misremembering when I thought Protars were 6-glass, 2x cemented triplet. Or is that true of the non-weitwinkel versions?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ian Grant]

Roger, as Ole says the Ross designed wide angles were often Protars.

For many years Ross made wide angle Protars under licence from Zeiss, and the lenses were marked as such. However during WWII the licence agreement was no longer sustainable, and the Protar name dropped, but Ross continued making the lenses for military use. I have a Air Ministry model for my 10x8 camera.

Ian

 

[Ole]

Thanks. I was clearly misremembering when I thought Protars were 6-glass, 2x cemented triplet. Or is that true of the non-weitwinkel versions?

The only thing you can be certain of with a Protar is that it's a Zeiss designed fully cemented anastigmat. Anything from 2 to 4 elements in each cell, some symmetric and some not. They also made a few 3+3 lenses - the Serie IV (in Germany only, B&L's Series IV is a Wide-angle) Protar is a convertible 3-element lens, and the Doppel-Amatar which is essentially a Dagor copy (thus not a Protar, since it's not a Zeiss design).

To find out the "real" construction of any Protar lens you either need to study one very carefully, or study the literature very carefully. As I've mentioned above, the lenses produced under license may not be the same as the ones made by Zeiss Jena!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ian, Dear Ole,

Thanks for the information. Lens design is one of those things I 'mug up' when I need it, hence my vagueness. I'm better on 35mm, said he defensively.

From the look of it -- black painted brass, style of knurling, engraving, etc -- this is from the 20s or 30s. The number is 235 324.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ole]

Another irrelevant fact: If the lens says "Series V", it's not made by Zeiss. The Zeiss ones only say "Protar F/18", no mention of Serie. Some of the WA Protars produced under license are f:16 instead of f:18. I believe the lenses to be the same, only the aperture opens up a little bit more.
Also the Germans were a little more fond of the 3.15-4.5-6.3-9-12.5-18-25-36-50 aperture scale. F:3.16 is Stolze Nr.1, then it doubles for each stop just like the US stops...

 

[jimgalli]

Lots of good answers here. Do you really love UWA (ultra wide angle) or is it WA (wide angle) you're after. One nice thing about 11X14 is that if you divide by 10 (easy) you have an equivalent in 35mm for your minds eye to to think of what the coverage will be. Thus a 270mm lens on 11X14 will have a similar aspect ration to a 27 or 28mm on a Nikon. An 8X10 Protar Serie V (183mm) will look like an 18mm on a Nikon. Pretty wide. A 9cm Hypergon even if you could afford one would look like a 9mm lens on a Nikon. That's just nuts.

Here's a cheap wide place to start. This is an oldie of mine and the auction finishes later today. It will give you a 28mm look on a Nikon. 10 3/4" = 270mm = looks like a 27mm on a Nikon. Hope that helps.

 

[mustard seed]

Schneider Wide Angle 210mm f/5.6 Super-Symmar XL Lens with Copal #3 Shutter

I'm thinking of buying this lens for my 11x14, any thoughts

 

[Samuel Hotton]

What an interesting thread! I, for years have wondered with what camera and lens did Irving Underhill use for the following photograph.

New York 1920 Exchange Court Building 52 Broadway & Exchange Place.

This link may get you there to see it.
www.shorpy.com/node/1318?size=_original

I suspect it MIGHT have been an 11x14 with a Hypergon. I don't know, DOES ANYONE HERE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HE USED?

I've been fascinated with Underhills work since I was a child, reading and looking at the pictures in "The Book of Knowledge".

Oles thought about the Hypergon covering 130+ degrees is also just about the maximum angle one can obtain from a pinhole. Since I'll likely never be able to find or purchase a propeller driven Hypergon or an 11x14 camera, this thread has excited me to the point of wanting to get my 8x10 out and make some pinholes to experiment with! Hmm, bet I could make a 11x14 pinhole box camera.
All the best,
Sam

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't know if Underhill used a Hypergon, but I have seen an 11x14" "skyscraper camera" designed around the Hypergon--very short bellows and front rise and fall are the only movements--kind of a 11x14" Cambo Wide. That would have worked for that shot. It looks like he's shooting from a building on the opposite corner of the street.

 

[John Z.]

I have been in your position; shooting 11x14, and looking for the 'widest ' lens. I know of an old ruin that I thought needed an ultrawide lens to photograph, and spent a few years trying to find that lens. My two cents:

You may want to reconsider the 'Ultrawide' perspective; there are numerous problems. I had the 183 Protar V, but very hard to see the edges of the image at f18. Even more problematic is compressing your bellows down to 183mm-virtually impossible. I had a custom recessed lens board made, and it still did not work. The 196 Protar IV at f12.5 worked, but just barely. I just bought a 200mm protar, but have not tried it yet. This is probably as wide as you can go; I think 200mm is approaching the practical limit.

What I discovered is that any lens below 200mm on 11x14 was just too wide, and realistically did not form a good image or perspective-didn't look natural; very distorted. I have the 240mm Computar now, which I have found is as wide a lens as I will ever need for landscape photography.

One other point to remember is that for any wide angle landscape photo, you will be using a great deal of back tilt, so you will need much more than just 450mm of coverage- probably need a 500mm image circle routinely.
Enjoy.

 

[Ole]

I don't use 11x14", but I do occasionally drag the 12x16" out to the car and take it for a ride...

An old 210mm f:6.8 Schneider Angulon just covers at very small stops; or at least it covers well enough for me. That is 500mm image circle, somewhat more than Schneider state for that lens. A 210mm Super Angulon has a nominal image circle of 500mm, yet it would be less usable on the 12x16" since it has a much sharper cutoff at the edge of coverage. it's easier to get away with a little blur than with a black corner.

John Z - back movements (other than rise/fall and shift) don't need more image circle. Front movements do, but you can often use a combination of front drop and tilt to get everything within the image circle - and emphasise the foreground at the same time. Then again my camera doesn't have front swing or tilt, only rise/fall and shift on the lens board. All tilt and swing is on the back, which makes it easier when the lenses just barely cover.

Underhill - I believe he must have used a Hypergon. Notice the evenness of illumination! It's either a Hypergon with propeller, or a Protar V with center filter. It was probably a "skyscraper" camera too.

A propos "skyscraper": Argentum Cameras make a similar one, for the same purpose. If I need really ridiculously wide I'll pop a 150mm WA Aplanat on my 9.5x12" tailboard camera - the camera can handle down to 50mm lenses with full movements, but I have nothing shorter than 150mm that covers the necessary 360mm image circle.

 

[Mark Sawyer]

I don't know if the original posters are following this thread anymore, but Lens and Repro is currently offering a "135mm Goerz Hypergon, Rapax shutter (!) with 3 filters" for $1500. Bit I'd get more info on the lens before buying. The Hypergons had their front and rear elements spaced extremely close together, and there wouldnt be room for separate shutter and aperture blades between them. The aperture on a Rapax wouldn't close down that far anyways, so maybe it was removed...

I have a 75mm Hypergon with the fan on an 8x10, and it's a trip to use. All exposures must be at least 1 to 2 seconds long to give enough time to use the fan, and the time the fan is used varies because of changes in the reciprocity curve. Composition is best done by looking at the scene outside the camera, as focusing is at about f/22 in the center, and maybe f/50 at the corners due to fall-off. And one must be very careful about leveling the camera. I must have bumped this one very slightly after leveling it...

 

[argus]

What an interesting thread! I, for years have wondered with what camera and lens did Irving Underhill use for the following photograph.

New York 1920 Exchange Court Building 52 Broadway & Exchange Place.

This link may get you there to see it.
www.shorpy.com/node/1318?size=_original

I suspect it MIGHT have been an 11x14 with a Hypergon. I don't know, DOES ANYONE HERE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HE USED?

I've been fascinated with Underhills work since I was a child, reading and looking at the pictures in "The Book of Knowledge".

Oles thought about the Hypergon covering 130+ degrees is also just about the maximum angle one can obtain from a pinhole. Since I'll likely never be able to find or purchase a propeller driven Hypergon or an 11x14 camera, this thread has excited me to the point of wanting to get my 8x10 out and make some pinholes to experiment with! Hmm, bet I could make a 11x14 pinhole box camera.
All the best,
Sam

that image is amazing, I almost feel myself falling out of the window when viewing it!

Greetings,
G

 

[Harrigan]

I have a very interesting super wide lens made by Gundlach which appears to be the Series X 165mm lens (as far as I can tell). The lens is only marked wide angle 10x12 but it appears to be the series X lens, according to a brochure page I have seen.

It looks like it may do 11x14 stopped down to f64. I never tried it on 11x14 and the corners may not sharpen up on that size I don't know. There is light there in the corners but I don't know if its good usable light.