Do any of you miss your super wide lens on 135 format?

<p>Just wondering about this question. I am using 135 format film / digital and looking at moving film to 120 this year. Like your thoughts on this ... I guess the question is you might be able to get a super wide lens (?) but it cab be a lot more limited and expensive. I mainly do landscapes and cityscapes hence the question :) </p>

<p>Hasselblad SWC kit 1800 Euro on ebay (buy now). A Zeiss 21mm + finder and M beater isn't much or necessarrily cheaper. - But for BW cityscapes a Super Angulon 90mm on a 5x7" sounds like even more fun. Or will I get away with the 120mm that even allowss some movements, while most urban SWA pictures taken with small rigid cameras waste a considrable amount of size with foreground filled to keep the camera leveled?<br>

IMHO different beasts suggesting different approaches to their subjects. - Do you really need a SLR / whatever for your cityscapes? Or would a rollholder behind a bagbellows cut your cake too?</p>

<p>I recently bought into a Pentax 67 system, and I made a point of also buying the 45mm and not the 55mm prime. The 45mm is roughly equivalent to a 24mm in 35mm format, whereas the 55mm is closer to the equivalent of a 28mm in 35mm format.</p>

<p>To me, in the 35mm format, the 24mm lens is so much more useful than the 28mm, the only time 28mm gets used anymore is if its the widest setting on a zoom lens I like. So it's gonna be the same with my 67. I definitely like the way things look in the viewfinder with the 45mm. So far, I've just shot only a couple of rolls of Tri-X with this camera and haven't developed them yet, so I don't have anything to show yet.</p>

<p>With the 67 system -- and others of similar size -- anything wider than a 45mm -- like a 35mm for example -- is a full-frame fisheye. I haven't seen a rectilinear 35mm yet, although such an animal probably exists in one of the medium format systems -- like Hassy, if I'd have to guess.</p>

<p>I've also done the same thing with my Bronica ETRSi system. I just bought a 40mm for it about the same time I bought my 67 outfit. And I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, either. But the 40mm should be roughly the equivalent of the 67's 45mm. Bronica also made a 30mm, but like the Pentax 67's 35mm, it is a full-frame fisheye, and I do not believe that Bronica made a rectilinear ultra-wide for the ETR system, either.</p>

<p>So, basically something in the 40-45mm range is most likely the widest rectilinear you're gonna be able to find. Apparently Zeiss made a 24mm f/3.5 rectilinear for Hassy, but it was a very limited purpose lens. It had no shutter and the glass was tinted so it could only be used on bodies with shutters, and was only good for B&W film because of the colored glass.</p>

<p>Eh? What limits do you have in mind?</p>

<p>These days I shoot mainly 6x9 and 6x12. 6x9 with short lenses on a Century Graphic, 6x12 with a Cambo SC. Short lenses used include 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, 47/5.6 Super Angulon (not -XL), 65/8 Ilex (= SA clone), ... If I wanted to limit myself to 6x6 I have a 38/4.5 Biogon (ex-AGI F135, its never seen a Hasselblad). </p>

<p>All of these lenses are around. The only really expensive one is the 35. If you want a 65, there are several f/8 and f/5.6 SA clones. If you want longer than 65 the choices are overwhelming.</p>

<p>With all respect to the OP, Jochen and Michael, one doesn't have to use a modern system camera to shoot roll film. Press and view cameras will also do and they greatly expand what's possible.</p>

<p>Don't forget that if you go really wide you'll need a center filter. I have two, for the 35 on 6x9 and 6x12 and the 47 on 6x12 (not absolutely necessary, IMO, on 6x9 or smaller formats).</p>

<p>In most of the situations in which I shoot the 35 is too wide.</p>

<p>No, I don`t.<br /> With a 24-35mm (full format equivalent, aprox.), I`m fine. Funny that we need all kind of lenses from 14 to 400mm on small format, and only three (say, 60, 110 and 180) if we shoot medium format.</p>

<p>I interpret by "super wide" that you refer to anything wider than 20mm in 135 say 12, 15 or 17mm. Unless I am mistaken, few if any 120 systems offer you rectilinear optics this wide. If you consider Hassy or Mamiya 7 you can get something like a 20 or 21mm effective lens (like the 7's 43mm lens) and this may be enough. I haven't seen many photos at 17mm or wider than could not be taken quite well using a 21mm equivalent 120 lens. Which 120 system are you thinking of? </p>

I like SWC but don't have one. Used to borrow or rent.

<p>In terms of a super wide I was meaning yeah .. 18-24mm "from" as in focal length of 135 system. On a systems camera so that's a 645 to a 6x7, not rangerfinders.</p>

<p>With the lens super wide lenses do you guys adapt and shoot different subjects with medium format?</p>

<p>Hasselblad 500 and the likes, P67 perhaps. </p>

<p>Guys, the shortest lens that covers nominal 6x9 (2.25" x 3.25") is the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. It sees the same angles (horizontal, vertical, and diagonal) of view as a 15 mm lens does on 24x36. On 6x12, one of the longer MF formats but not the longest, it sees a horizontal angle of view of 116 degrees. Diagonal is 120 degrees. Sharp, rectilinear. I have one.</p>

<p>The 47 Super Angulon (f/8, f/5.6) sees the same view on 6x9 as a 20 mm lens on 24x36. Sharp, rectilinear. I have one.</p>

<p>The 38/4.5 Biogon covers an 84 mm circle with good sharpness and illumination. On nominal 6x6 (2.25" square) it sees 73 degrees horizontally and vertically, 93 degrees on the diagonal. Sharp, rectilinear. I have one.</p>

<p>Rectilinear wide angle lenses and SLRs are essentially incompatible.</p>

<p>Ray, if you limit yourself to 645 or 6x7 you're doing yourself a disservice. 645 is half frame 6x9, 645 trannies look pretty punk next to 6x9ers. To be fair, 6x9ers look punk next to 4x5ers.</p>

<p>Michael McBroom wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the 67 system -- and others of similar size -- anything wider than a 45mm -- like a 35mm for example -- is a full-frame fisheye. I haven't seen a rectilinear 35mm yet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've said it twice so far in this discussion, I'll say it again. 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. I have one. Not a fisheye. And I haven't mentioned Schneider's 38/5.6 Super Angulon XL which is rectilinear and covers 6x12. Take your head out of your SLRs and look around you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like many amateurs I take many photographs on (holiday) travel so those options are no that user friendly. While I might look for vantage points and return at a later time, I would be carrying it around me all day. For medium format I am looking for a convenient way of use should I go all the way out and in future that might be a 4x5 but it is likely I would use it in the smaller towns with something like a RX100 for that busy city and night walks around (Civics) Times Square etc...</p>

<p>My widest medium format lens is a 50/4.5 Zenzanon PG for my GS-1 cameras. It wasn't terribly expensive and the results are excellent.</p>

<p>Ray, thanks for clarifying what you mean by "medium format." Your original question was <em>much</em> too open-ended.</p>

<p>Re user friendly, tastes differ. If you can do what you want with 35 mm, stick with it. You'll save money, avoid frustration. The only lightweight 6x6 camera is the Voigtlaender Perkeo, and it is quite limited.</p>

<p>Re landscapes and such, ultrawide lenses aren't particularly good for this application. The shots come out all foreground, no background. Have you taken satisfactory landscapes with "18-24mm" on 35 mm film?</p>

<p>The post was a general question. Much of the scapes I have taken are a bit longer like a 24 or 28mm or even 85mm. However there are occasions when I have used a really wide lens like 18mm on film (full frame 35mm) or 10mm on Nikon DX crop sensor - Kuala Lumpur Petrona (Twin) Towers while standing where those water fountains are, the full cityscape of Melbourne with the Yarra River in front. Civic (Time) Squares in various cities you could get up closer to that man made sculture structure and deliberately distort the image while getting very low on the ground to get those brick ground textures.</p>

<p>How heavy is the Horseman SW612 anyway with the 6x9 back and a single lens? Isn't the body like $2k and lenses like $2-3k?</p>

<p>The reason I want medium format is b/c I mainly shoot off a tripod so when I do that with a 35mm feels a bit silly. MF gear have also come down heaps in price (many kit setups can be had well under $1k with a lens). That is if I can live without the superwides - most MF gear don't have such wide lenses. Hence my post maybe some people and myself could just adapt and shoot differently with a MF setup. Since I shoot mainly in the golden/blue hour that is when the big camera is for. Something like a 1.5kg setup with 1 with 2 extra lenses is what I am thinking of. Then with a dSLR and maybe a 18-35mm for my touristic snaps or just replace that with a Sony RX100.</p>

<p>One possible way to solve your super wide problem is to use a 35mm fisheye (Pentax 67) for <strong>landscapes</strong> and put the horizon at the middle of the frame so the barrel distortion is not evident. Then crop the film slightly if you find that mid frame compositions are not as aesthetic as using 1/3, 2/3 framing. I have done this at times. The fisheye gives 180 degrees of view but that is a diagonal measurement. The horizontal is noticeably less but still super wide. The 6x7 frame can be cut down to 645 and still be wide enough for what you describe. For <strong>cityscapes</strong>, the 45mm used vertically may work, as it is 89 degrees diagonally. It has a slight mustache distortion but is not severe. </p>

<p>Ray, I've told you about wide angle lenses that cover at least 6x9. Several times. With the possible exception of the 38/5.6 SA-XL they can all be used on a Century Graphic (=, for all practical purposes, 2x3 Crown Graphic). These cameras aren't that expensive, roll holders that fit them aren't that expensive (6x6, 6x7, 6x9) and the lenses mentioned, 35/4.5 Apo Grandy excepted, aren't that expensive either. If all you want is 6x9 you can assemble a wonderful set of lenses for a Century/2x3 Crown Graphic (subject to longest focal length no longer than a 250 mm telephoto) for less than the price you quoted for a Horseman 6x12.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf">http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf</a> will give you an idea of what can be done with 2x3 Graphics. I haven't written a parallel piece on 6x12.</p>

<p>You don't need an insane lens kit like mine.</p>

<p>If you want to go 6x12, there are inexpensive and also quite nice more expensive (~ $600) 6x12 roll holders that will fit a 4x5 view camera. I use a Cambo, relatively inexpensive ($125 delivered). Lotsa movements, unlike a Graphic. Or you can use a 4x5 Crown Graphic; these cameras are very friendly to short lenses but there's no way to use a 35/4.5 Apo Grandy on one. I've explored the possibilities with the Dau brothers at skgrimes.com, it just can't be done.</p>

<p>If you're going to shoot from tripod you don't need a camera with lens(es) on focusing helical(s). You need a camera with a ground glass for focusing. See above.</p>

<p>Apart of its quality, what about the Russian Arsat, 3.5 / 30mm ? Is it considered a fisheye equivalent to a 18mm in 135 film cameras?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks. </p>

<p>So basically there are the specific panorama cameras that can be expensive like Horseman, Linhof, Fuji etc and not look truly out of place in a city environment; then there is the 2x3 option with a back and 4x5, 5x7 and larger. A 4x5 or 5x7 would be more versatile wouldn't to to shoot a full sheet and then pop the panorama back on it and shoot a pano or just shoot the whole sheet away and crop in post processing. </p>

<p>On a 4x5 and 5x7 (full sheet, not pano) what are the widest lenses? </p>

<p>This link <a href="http://1drv.ms/1w0vbMD">http://1drv.ms/1w0vbMD</a> will take you to a list of links to lens catalogs. Relatively modern lenses are your best bets, pay attention to (in alphabetical order) Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider.</p>

<p>Right. Cropped sheet film = 120 film. But 120 will give you more shots/dollar.</p>

<p>A 4x5 camera allows roll holders up to 6x12 with no drama. A 5x7, up to 6x17.</p>

<p>I have one 4x5 Cambo SC and several 2x3ers. I have a 6x12 and a 6x9 roll holder that fit the 4x5er, also 2x3 (= 6x9) roll holders that fit the 2x3ers and my 2x3 Graphics. I actually use a hybrid camera, 2x3 front, tapered bellows, 4x5 rear. Had to make my own tapered bag bellows to allow use of really short lenses. If you're starting from nothing and nowhere this is absolutely the wrong way to go, much too expensive, 2x3 Cambo SCs are hard to find, and tapered pleated bellows (fit 2x3 SC standard at one end, 4x5 at the other) are expensive and even harder to find. I had my reasons, no one else in the known universe is in my situation.</p>

<p>I'll say it again. If you want to shoot 6x9 with short lenses a Century/2x3 Crown Graphic is the cost effective way to go. Might be the most compact too.</p>

If you are going to be locked

onto a tripod, you may as well go

the 4x5 route. Like you, i think

24mm is my favorite wide angle

focal length on 35mm cameras.

 

A 4x5 kit with a 65 or 75mm lens

could be found for around 500-

1000$. This kit would be lighter

than a Pentax 6x7. And you get

the bonus of movments.

 

I have a shen-hao 4x5, but a

crown graphic is a very capable

wide angle camera. You can use a

47mm lens on a crown though you

don't get movements because the

bellows is too compressed.

<p>Darin, if you're thinking of a 4x5 Crown Graphic, the camera's minimum flange-to-film distance is 52.4 mm. This is a hair too short to focus to infinity with a 47 (f/8 and f/5.6) SA. It will make infinity with a 47/5.6 SA XL.</p>

<p>You may be thinking of a 2x3 Crown (= Century), whose minimum flange-to-film distance is a mere 34.9 mm.</p>

<p>Seems to me Ray needs a Plaubel 69W proshift superwide.<br>

6x9 with Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/47mm (needs a center filter!).<br>

<img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108865744/photofab/69w_superwide_pnet.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>My widest is a 50mm on Hassy and a 90mm on horseman 6x12 back on 4x5 camera. I do not miss the Canon 17-40 or Panasonic 7-14 u4/3 angles of view. A long time ago I stopped trying to associate medium format and 4x5 lenses with my 35mm. Different animals. I'd forget about taking a 4x5 on vacations though unless you are traveling alone and by car. When I go on vacations or with other people I usually take whatever current Canon G-series camera I own at the time.</p>

<p>I shot ultrawide with a 17mm lens on 135 film for many years before trying 55mm on 6x6. I shot 6x6 film for a few years but for ultrawide I realized that I could not get the effect that I wanted but the improved image quality pushed me to try 65mm SA on 4x5. I used the 65 on a Speed Graphic and it just got too complicated and time consuming. I could not focus with the lensboard on the focus rails, it had to be mounted, and adjusted manually, inside the body on the body rails which made getting the range of focus very difficult, not to mention all the while under a dark cloth. I did determine at the time that I could even mount a 47 XL SA the same way but never experimented with it. I plunged ahead with the 65 SA for a few years but eventually decided that film storage, film loading, lack of depth of field, inability to achieve required movements without spending a fortune, and limited access to film and processing in my area that 4x5 was no longer for me. It was sad to leave the superb image quality on Velvia and Ektachrome VS. </p>

<p>Instead of investing more money and time into 4x5 I sold everything. Having already started into digital 35mm bodies I did not even consider medium format digital because of its crop factor. I had been using a 14mm lens on FX DSLR and decided to abandon that, at the same time as 4x5, in favor of the Canon 17 TS-e on a 5D II. While wider the 14mm suffered from optical distortion. I can correct converging verticals with the 17 TS-E or I can shift and stitch to achieve the view of a 12mm lens with medium format image quality. </p>

<p>Now I am looking forward to a 50 MP Canon body, and the 11-24/4 L will mate well with my 8/2.8 fisheye and 17 TS-E. Of course not for a few years due to the costs of each!</p>

<p>Yes I did miss ultrawide in medium and large format. Yes there are one or two avenues that I could have taken to improve the situation but I have never regretted the path back to digital full frame 135. </p>