WA Lens 7x11

While on my morning 5K ....( running does give one such clarity!) I

realized my life would be incomplete until I possessed a WA lens for

the 7x11..... something lightweight for the field & contrasty for B&W

with a cover circle over 330... I have been searching unsuccessfully

for a used Schneider Angulon 210/6.8.... And am now wondering if

there are other alternatives that fit my criteria... the wider the

better... Thanks!

Want really wide? My Schneider Super Symmar XL 110mm will cover 5x12 when

stopped down to f/22. And sharply at that. I think the film diagonal is the same

between the 5x12 and the 7x11, so I feel certain it will work. The light fall-off is

incredible because of the 105 degree coverage angle, and you might want to get a

center filter, or just be happy that you don't have to do any corner burn when you

print your negative!

 

Clay

The now discontinued Rodenstock Apo-Sironar W 210mm has a 336mm image circle (and is smaller than the Super-Symmar HM or XL versions). At 240mm as a more moderate WA you have several choices, including the lightweight Fujinon A in a no.0 shutter. If you want to go REALLY wide and money is no problem you could always try to get a Hypergon with 140° coverage, either the 84mm Wisner version listed on his web site or a used one.... :-)

Thanks Clay...I think the 110xl was mentioned to me previously...how bad is the light fall-off? Arne, there was a fully functioning Hypergon that sold at the PHSC auction last Spring for about 800US if only I had known what it was at the time!

Ann,

 

If you go the 110 route, be prepared to rig some kind of deeply recessed lens board. Because I wanted to use my 110 on smaller format cameras as well, I had to build a 2" deep box that slips into the front of my 7x11 and then accepts linhof type lens boards.

 

Light fall-off is noticable, but manageable IMO.

Ann,

 

The 210 Angulon is a good choice - they are rare but they do show up on e-bay on occasion. Another option is the 210 f9 Computar. Make sure its the f9 version... it comes in a copal 1 and is very tiny. Covers my 7x17 barely so will work well on 7x11.

 

If you wish to go wider, the 150mm Schneider Super Symmar XL will cover with plenty of space, is very small for a modern 150mm 8x10 wide angle (vs the Nikkor and Rodenstock versions). I am also sure that a 120SW Nikkor will work since it reportedly covers 8x10 (similar IC).

 

Steve

From the burning-in I have had to do, I would estimate the light fall-off at about a

stop. It's not bad, and is inevitable just because of the geometry involved. And as far

as the recessed lensboard goes, I have not had to use one on my Canham. With such

a wide angle of view, there is not a lot of need for swings and tilts - you can get it all

in the frame just by pointing your camera in the general direction of your subject.

 

Clay

nne,

 

I wonder if the Kowa (Kyyvytar) 210mm f9/6.8 would do the trick?

 

Mine covers 8x10 with what seems like a nice amount of movement at f22/32.

 

I've never actually measured the coverage. Some say it will cover 460mm - I'd guess it's more like 380mm @ f22. Extremely light (smaller than the G Claron 210mm). Much cheaper than a super angulon (I'm searching for a cheap SA 165mm f8.... :-) ) - even if you have to buy a copal #1 shutter to put it in. Very very sharp and "zingy"

 

Only downside is no proper filter ring (I have both a slip on series filter for mine and a 41mm to 49mm adapter that sort of screws in to the tiny bit of thread there is [it's a process lens]. But I don't use filters an awful lot

 

There are a number of threads in the archives about it. Jim Galli has done some tests with a number of 210mm lenses including this. I also posted some info I dug up about it.

 

With what I'm working on right now, it's probably become my most used lens this summer

 

They come up in barrel on ebay fairly frequently (or used to anyway) for between $90.00 and $150.00. Apparently there are a couple of different versions so you have to be a little careful (one fits a copal shutter the other doesn't). I just removed mine from the barrel, removed my G Claron 210 elements from their shutter and screwed it straight in - et voila. (BTW - it's in the archives I think, but while it is marked f9, that is the limit when it is barrel mounted - in a shutter it opens up to 6.8. My G Claron copal was marked to f9 and works for my Kowa now - the shutter actually opens up wider - I just use it like that for the extra light for focussing - if that makes sense...)

Gee, Ann. The only thing I think about when running is being DONE

running!

 

{:^) DG

Lots of great options thanks everyone..... zingy I like zingy!! David, usually I am thinking 'I hope that pack of dogs doesn't chase me again!' Cheers...A.

Ann, my 81/4 inch dagor will almost cover 11x14. I picked it up in a compound for $185. I think you have to be carefull with some of the old dagors, some have a ton of coverage whilst others do not.

 

Good luck with the dogs. I used to have the same problem while cycling many years ago. Once squirt with a water bottle between the eyes would always do the trick. The dogs never knew what hit 'em!

You might like the 130mm f12 Rodenstock Perigon. It is small/tiny, light and like a Protar with an extra stop and coating. Big image circle at around 15" or so if memory serves me right. I have one that kicks butt in B&W. There is someone in Germany with some NOS for sale at $500-in shutter.

Hi Annie,

 

I just did the numbers and I think you will have 2.25 times the light fall-off with a 110 lens from the center to the corner, or just slightly over one stop (1 1/8 stops) as was already mentioned. If you use some movement, there will be more in one direction due to the distance (offset) of the axis of the lens. A center filter will work, but will result in slower shutter speeds when taking the shot.

 

I guess you should decide between a center filter or some extra time in printing for every image you would make if you decide to use the 110 lens. If money is no object, the 110 with a center filter would certainly be the way to go for super wide in 7x11. I'm not so sure I would want to spend that kind of time in printing without the filter if it were me.

Re the light falloff of a 110 mm Super-Symmar-XL on this format -- it is a lot more than suggested by some of the answers.

 

Using the nominal dimensions 7x11 inches, the format diagonal is 13.0 inchs or 331 mm. Probably the usable size after subtracting the film holder marks is a bit less -- I will guess 320 mm. The half-diagonal would then be 160 mm. Schneider's website has a pdf file with a graph of the relative illumination of this lens. The graph ends at a radius of 145 mm because that is all the coverage that Schneider claims for the lens -- thus 7x11 is off the scale of Schneider's graph. The end of the graph at 145 mm shows a relative illumination of about 13%, or 2.9 stops falloff without even getting to the corners of 7x11.

 

The illumination falloff can be calculated from the cosine to the fourth law. For the end of Schneiders graph, the angle theta is arc tan (145 / 110) = 52.8 degrees. Taking the cosine and then the fourth power, one obtains a relative illumination of 13%, in perfect agreeement with Schneider's graph. Now doing the calculation for the corners of 7x11, theta is arc tan (160 / 110) = 55.5 degrees, cosine theta is 0.567, and cosine theta to the fourth power is 0.10 -- the corners are receiving only 10% of the illumination of the center, a 3.3 stop falloff.

 

Clay's estimate of one stop seems to be what he found on an exposed negative, which will be less than the light difference when the negative was exposed because the negative was probably developed to a contrast index well below one, which is to say, the tonal range in the negative is compressed compared to the scence.

 

A center filter will improve the illumination falloff, except there are reports in the forum archive that the center filter for the 110 SS-XL causes vignetting on 8x10.

 

To answer the original question, the diagonal of 7x11 is almost the same as 8x10, so any lens that works well for 8x10 will likely work for 7x11. There are many previous questions and answers in the archive of the forum on wide-angles for 8x10 -- look under the 8x10: cameras and lenses heading, and under some of the lenses headings. If cost/weight isn't the most important issue, a lens with improved illumination falloff might be wanted: these include Fuji-SW, Nikkor-SW, Rodenstock Grandagon and Schneider Super-Angulon (but not Angulon).

A Super-Angulon 165mm/f:8 will cover, so will an ancient Zeiss Protar 14cm/f:18. I believe the Protar will be the cheaper alternative - especially if you buy mine ;)

Ole... I thought the 140 Protar was a bit shy of 8x10.... f18 is a little dim for my focussing skills... Michael... Thanks for the additional information .... I think the light falloff on the 110 excludes it from my list.... I almost had a Computar 210 but some savvy bidder scooped it : ) ...I am still looking, got a 240 to use until I can get something wider..... Thanks again, Annie.