Wiiiide Lens for 4x5

[BAB]

Hi,

I've always been interested in architectural photography and have a strong urge to update and renew that interest. Especially now that I'm retired and have the time. Most of my 4x5 work has been landscapes and hence I used field cameras without back movements. Now I'm thinking of acquiring a Sinar F, as they're relatively inexpensive and seem to offer the back movements I might need. A P2 would be perfect, but one of the F models should work just fine. To accommodate the exigencies of the digital age, I was strongly considering doing initial (and perhaps the bulk of) work in this venue using my 6x8cm roll-film Graflock back. Simply because processing is more readily available for color transparencies, and processing 120 b/w rolls is easier. I still want the ability to use 4x5, however. And I still have the trays in which to develop them. Too, how many 4x5 color transparency scans does it take to fill a 1tb hard drive?

The glitch is that one needs a very wide angle lens with the crop factor of the 6x8cm roll back. To get under wires and trees, and, OMG, do whole interiors rooms. Somewhere around 35-50mm.

So. I was wondering if anyone might have recommendations for a (35)40 to 50mm 4x5 lens that costs less than $10,000. A coated lens would be preferred, and it wouldn't have to be super fast. My budget is considerably less than $10,000.

Thanks much,
BAB

 

[BAB]

Which means I'll probably stick to a 65mm lens and buy a used one. If I'm not mistaken that gives about the same angle of view with 6x8cm as about a 30mm lens on 35mm. Which is fine I guess, as switching to 4x5 would give an angle of view similar to a 20mm lens on 35mm. That's an OK range, and I'll keep my eyes open for a used copy of the Schneider's. Thanks much!

BAB

The Schneider ultra wide XL lenses go as wide as 38mm and they are in the $2000 range (new). The 38mm doesn't cover 4x5 though. The 47mm and 58mm XLs are the widest ones that cover 4x5 (with almost no movement though).

 

[Dan Fromm]

If you're shooting nominal 2x3, you don't need a lens that covers 4x5, you need a lens that covers 2x3 with room to spare.

Look here: http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdf, a 35/4.5 or 45/4.5 Apo Grandagon should suit you. If you're going to move either any distance off center and are shooting color reversal film you'll need a center filter. FWIW, I have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon and a 47/5.6 Super Angulon; I use both on a Century Graphic. I have a center filter for the 35 and use it, don't feel the need for one on the 47.

2.25" x 3.25", usually referred to as 2x3, is roughly 56 mm x 82 mm, usually referred to as 6x9. This may be why you're talking about 6x8. 6x8 isn't common, AFAIK there's only one camera that claims to shoot 6x8 on roll film. When most people say 6x9 they mean, whether they know it or not, 56 x 82. pr x 81. or x 78. Roll holder manufacturers are a little capricious.

That format's diagonal is around 100 mm and its aspect ratio is around 2:3. 35mm still film's diagonal is 43 mm and its aspect ratio is 2:3. On 2x3, a 65 mm lens sees the same angle of view as a .43 * 65 = 28 lens on 35 mm still. 47, 20. 35, 15.

4x5 isn't as directly comparable. There are a fair number of 65 mm lenses that will cover at least 4x5 from, in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock. Shorter than that the choices are more limited. If you're going to shop for a 65 that covers 4x5 with room to spare it isn't clear that you need the latest most best.

 

[BAB]

Thanks for clarifying the capriciousness of roll-film back producers. I scratched my head over that when I bought it years ago. For the record, though, the Zeiss Ikonta I just sold produced negatives that were 56x86mm. A real 6x9. Didn't Fuji produce a 6x8 rangefinder a couple decades ago?

At any rate, you're quite right that I wouldn't necessarily need a 4x5 lens to cover 2x3 film. However, given the expense of large-format lenses I considered it useful to buy 4x5 coverage so I could use the lens on both formats. Since retiring, I'm relearning the word "frugal." The latest and best are not on my immediate horizon. In that regard, I wonder if you might direct me to a website that would offer useful info about the various large format lenses. I have a Nikkor 180 and a 150 from an old Graphic, but don't have anything smaller. I see that KEH has a variety of 65mm lenses offered for $500 or so, but haven't the slightest which to choose. Grandagon, Super-Angulons seem to dominate their current offerings (Dead Link Removed) but finding information on the circle of coverage for the older models is a hit and miss proposition. I'm not even sure that all of these are coated optics.

Thanks for the advice, and any way you can point me to more detailed information concerning older model lenses would be most appreciated. Actually, that would have been the subject of my next letter to the forum.

Bruce

If you're shooting nominal 2x3, you don't need a lens that covers 4x5, you need a lens that covers 2x3 with room to spare.

Look here: http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdf, a 35/4.5 or 45/4.5 Apo Grandagon should suit you. If you're going to move either any distance off center and are shooting color reversal film you'll need a center filter. FWIW, I have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon and a 47/5.6 Super Angulon; I use both on a Century Graphic. I have a center filter for the 35 and use it, don't feel the need for one on the 47.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ain't no uncoated modern high-coverage wide angle lenses for large format. They're all well post-WW II. There are uncoated ancient types but very few as short as you think you need.

There are lens catalogs all over the 'net. For LF Nikkors, go to http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/old_literature.htm . For Fuji, here http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/fujinon_1.html and here http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/ . For current and recent Schneider, www.schneideroptics.com . For current Rodenstock, http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/

Read the catalogs, make a table of lens name, focal length, and claimed coverage. There's no rational basis for choice among lenses of the same focal length that have as much coverage as you need, let price and condition guide you.

There are two reasons for using 4x5 instead of 2x3. 4x5 will give larger prints than 2x3, the 4x5 ground glass is larger than the 2x3 so composing is easier on 4x5. How large do you want to print? If you don't need prints larger than 2x3 can give, 2x3 may make good sense for you. Until you go shorter than 47 mm, lenses that cover 2x3 with some movements are relatively inexpensive. Shorter than 47 mm is another story entirely.

Keep in mind that if you don't pay top dollar for a used lens you can resell it for at worst a small loss.

When you're ready to shop, look in the classifieds here and on http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ . BTW, you'll get more and better advice on the LF forum than on APUG.

 

[BAB]

Thanks, Dan. I just found the large format forum, and some interesting information there. This one especially:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html. It seems the 65mm lenses a narrower coverage circle, than 75 or 90 mm lenses. I wonder how that translates into perspective coverage on 4x5 with the 65mm (back tilts)? It's more than enough for 2x3 of course, and the equivalent of a 28-30mm lens on 35mm format should be very useful.

You're right. I suspect 60 or 70 percent of images will be done in 2x3, so I'll take your advice about looking for lens that will cover that format.

I see what you mean about the large-format forum and I'll sign up there. Basically all my immediate questions could probably be answered searching through their archives.

Thanks much for taking the time to write,
Bruce

Ain't no uncoated modern high-coverage wide angle lenses for large format. They're all well post-WW II. There are uncoated ancient types but very few as short as you think you need.

There are lens catalogs all over the 'net. For LF Nikkors, go to http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/old_literature.htm . For Fuji, here http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/fujinon_1.html and here http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/ . For current and recent Schneider, www.schneideroptics.com . For current Rodenstock, http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/

Read the catalogs, make a table of lens name, focal length, and claimed coverage. There's no rational basis for choice among lenses of the same focal length that have as much coverage as you need, let price and condition guide you.

There are two reasons for using 4x5 instead of 2x3. 4x5 will give larger prints than 2x3, the 4x5 ground glass is larger than the 2x3 so composing is easier on 4x5. How large do you want to print? If you don't need prints larger than 2x3 can give, 2x3 may make good sense for you. Until you go shorter than 47 mm, lenses that cover 2x3 with some movements are relatively inexpensive. Shorter than 47 mm is another story entirely.

Keep in mind that if you don't pay top dollar for a used lens you can resell it for at worst a small loss.

When you're ready to shop, look in the classifieds here and on http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ . BTW, you'll get more and better advice on the LF forum than on APUG.

 

[Dan Fromm]

That is an old list and is incomplete. Go look at the catalogs. And remember that it is very hard to make a bad mistake when buying a modern lens for LF.

 

[wiltw]

Classic tilt-shift lenses for shooting architectural interiors with 135 format are 24mm FL on a frame which is 24mm high. Shooting 6x8cm format, you are working with 55mm frame height limit of rollfilm, so comparable coverage is provided with a 55mm FL. There are 58mm large format lenses by Schneider, Rodenstock, Horseman, and Cambo to consider.