150mm Super-Symmar XL for 10x8....Examples?

I'm looking for a wide angle lens to do some interiors with a 10x8 camera. I don't need a

ton of movements, although some moderate corrections would be needed. I've been

considering the 150mm Super-Symmar XL, and I was wondering if anyone on here has any

experience with the lens on 10x8. If you could post some samples with the lens, I would

love to see some photographs made with the lens. I'm not too worried about the quality of

the lens, which I've heard is exemplary, but I'm wondering how the perspective compares

to other lenses. If the lens is rougly equal to a 21mm lens on 35mm, I'm curious if

the 150 would have a similarly "wide-angle" look, or if the view is somewhat flattened on

the bigger camera. I need a wide angle of view but I don't want noticeable distortion. I'm

also curious if the center filter is necessary for shooting color negative film. I'm open to

other lens suggestions, but I want to stick to a relatively modern lens that is quite sharp. I

occasionally print my images very large. Thanks!

Noah,

 

A 150mm WA lens with 8x10 is the equivalent of a 75mm on 4x5 format. There should be quite few 4x5 images of interiors made with 75mm lenses (both in books and on the web) for you to review; this is a very popular FL for architectural and landscape photographers.

 

I've never used the 150 SS XL. I did use the Nikkor 150 SW with 8x10 for several years. I no longer own it since this was my least used lens with 8x10. It's a modern lens with lots of coverage for 8x10 and excellent sharpness all the way into the corners (if set up correctly). I used it primarily for B&W and did not use a center filter. (Sorry...I do not have any images I could share with you here.)

 

I currently use a Nikkor 75 SW with my 4x5. When comparing images made with these two lenses I found that I did not use them in the same way. However, I would imagine that if one were to make similar images of the same subject, with both lenses/cameras set up for the same composition, the resulting "look" would be pretty much the same, though DOF might be a bit less with the 150.

I have one which I occasionally use on 8x10, but I'm curious what you think you'd see in a 72 dpi jpeg versus any other lens.

 

Steve

Other possibilites are the 150 mm f8 Nikkor-SW, the 155 mm f6.8 Grandagon-N and the 165 mm f8 Super-Angulon. While slower, larger and heavier than the Super-Symmar-XL, these lenses have the advantage of more even illumination. They use an optical trick of tilting the pupils to improve the off-axis illumination. Those alternatives are less likely to need a center filter. Since you are using negative film, you are may or may not find a center filter useful. Since negative film has a lot of exposure latitude on the overexposure side, I suggest giving extra exposure so that the corners get adequate exposure while the center gets extra.

 

None of these lenses have significant distortion, with distortion having the meaning that straight lines in the scene are rendered as curves in the print, i.e., barrel or pin cushion distortion.

 

If by distortion you mean the perspective effects where objects close to the lens seem unnaturally large, or objects near the edge of the frame seem stretched, then yes, a 150 mm lens on 8x10 will have these effects. These effects are simply due to print view geometry for prints taken with an extreme wide angle lens and don't depend on format. If you could put your eye very close to the print, these perspective effects would go away. But you wouldn't be able to see the entire print at once. But an extreme wide-angle lens is showing you more of the world than you could focus on at once in the real scene. In viwing the real scene, we avoid the stretching of objects at the edge of the frame by turning our head and placing them in the center of the new frame.

 

A difference between LF and small formats is that sometimes you could use back movements to make false perspective that would compensate for stretching at an edge and make the photo look more pleasing. Or in some cases keeping the back plumb and using front rise might make a better composition, with more pleasing perspective.

 

Steve, I think Noah wants to see examples, not to pick the 150 mm SS-XL over some other lens, but to see what examples of photos taken by 150 mm lens on an 8x10 camera. As Sergio points out, this scales, so Noah can look at examples of 75 mm on 4x5 -- the view and perspective will look exactly the same.

Thanks for the advice, I'll check out some of those other lenses as well. Michael was

correct--I'm looking for examples of pictures taking with this lens not to check the

sharpness, which would be impossible to tell on a computer screen, but merely to get a

feel for how wide the images look. Of course, techincally this is not to useful either since I

should really look at prints the same size as I want to make from some ideal viewing

distance, but I was just looking to get an idea. I'll look around for some 75mm 4x5 pics.

Thanks for the advice!

I guess he wants to shoot outdoors. The Super-Symmar XL is the best choice if weight and size are to be considered. The brighter ground-glass image compared to the other lenses is probably welcome, too.

i have both a 75mm lens and the 150-XL. just a few thoughts... the 75 is one of my most used lenses on 4x5. once i realized that, i went out and bought a 150-XL to use on my 8x10 thinking it would give me the same FOV. well, it didn't! i suspected as much while looking at the gg, but thought it was just an artifact of the larger image. so, i took identical shots, once with my 75mm lens on 4x5 and again with the 150-XL on 8x10. as i suspected, the 150 on 8x10 is wider that the 75 on 4x5. don't ask me to explain it, all i know is what my contact sheets told me.

 

i find that my 210 on 8x10 is closer in character to my 75 on 4x5.

Scott, thanks for your insight. I had a feeling the 150 might be a bit too wide, but I wasn't

sure. I'll have to go rent one to make sure it's what I want before I think about buying one.

Which 210mm do you use with 8x10? The SS-XL is a huge piece of glass and a bit pricey.

Are there other options? I guess I should rent both to try them out and see which I prefer,

but I do need to know what options I have for a 210mm.

<p>Scott's obsevation that a 75 mm lens on 4x5 and a 150 mm lens on 8x10 have different fields of view is extremely hard to understand. The mathematical optics of the situation are very simple. Comparing 135 and 4x5 is tricky because the aspect ratios are different, but 4x5 and 8x10 have the same aspect ratio.</p>

 

<p>Conventional lenses render perspective like a pinhole. To get the angle of view of a 75 mm lens on 4x5, draw a 120 mm line (for the length of the long dimension of a 4x5 film). Then, centered 75 mm in front of the line, place a dot, representing the lens or pinhole. Draw two lines from the dot to the ends of the line -- these repesent the ends of the FOV. Extended towards the scene, the represent the limits of the field of view when of the scence when focused on infinity. (A little trig will show that the angle is 77.3 degrees.)</p>

 

<p>Now double all of the dimensions -- you have a focal length of 150 mm and a film length of 240 mm. By similar triangles, the angles are the same -- the field of view is the same.</p>

 

<p>There are some very slight complications from this simple argument, but they don't effect the conclusion in any meaningful way. First, the usable area of an 8x10 film isn't exactly twice that of 4x5, it is actually slightly bigger, so a 150 mm should have a slightly larger FOV than a 75 mm lens on 4x5. I measure 95 x 120 mm for 4x5, and 200 x 245 mm for 8x10.</p>

 

</p>Second, as you focus on closer objects, the 150 mm lens has to be extended proportionally further than the 75 mm lens. Doing the calculation for focusing for an object at 4 meters, and using the long format dimensions given above, I find 76.3 degrees for both the 75 mm lens on 4x5 and the 150 mm lens on 8x10, so the two complications have cancelled each other.</p>

 

<p>If you want a different source for angles of view, here is a web based calculator: <a href="http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html">http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html</a>.

But that calculator won't exactly match my numbers (unless you enter dimensions in the "other" fields) because it uses the nominal dimensions of 4x5 and 8x10 film rather than the usable image dimensions.<p>

 

 

<p>Indeed a 150 mm lens on 8x10 is very wide, and you may find it too wide, but it isn't any wider than a 75 mm lens on 4x5. I have a 72 mm lens for my 4x5 camera, and I don't use it very often, but when my moderate wide can't capture the subject, the 72 mm really comes to the rescue.</p>

Noah,

 

I use a 10" WF Ektar (250mm) on the 8x10 as my moderate WA. In the past I've also rented a 210mm Schneider SA for 8x10 (the newer ones are HUGE and very expensive, the older Angulon is a bit less huge and can be had for a lot less money), which is also considered a moderate WA for the 8x10 format. I am of the decided opinion that the "moderate" 8x10 WA's (anything from about 200mm to 250mm) are significantly different from anything in the 150mm to 165mm range. Michael is right, the 150 is the equivalent of the 75, both on paper and in actual look.

 

A 150mm lens on the 8x10 format is/was simply too wide for the kind of images I was trying to make with my 8x10. And I was also mostly making contact prints. I suspect if I had been enlarging these images to very large print sizes I would have a different opinion, and might have appreciated the 150 SW more. I even used a Nikkor 120 SW on the 8x10 format (the widest lens you can use on this format a still have full coverage, though with no movements) and the look was even significantly more wide than the 150mm SW.

 

Since you plan to enlarge your 8x10 images to very large print sizes your results may be different. Also look at Clyde Butcher's LF work; he enlarges to incredible dimensions with 8x10 (and larger formats) and uses extreme WA perspectives. He produces beautiful LF landscape work.

 

I also strongly believe that the 8x10 format is used differently than the 4x5 (at least in my situation), particularly with wide angle lenses. I have no trouble using a 75mm on the 4x5 and getting wonderful results. Also look at Muench's (sp?) wide angle work for a true appreciation of this focal length on the 4x5 format. And for interiors/architecture the 75mm is also indispensable.

 

Why then did I not use the 150 on 8x10 the same as I use the 75 on 4x5?

 

It might have to do with the weight and bulk of 8x10 vs. 4x5 equipment. There is something very limiting about weight and bulk, not only on your physical stamina, but on your creative approach as well. I cannot really explain it, but I know it's so in my case.

 

It might also be that I always use the 8x10 more "formally". This might be a result of my own restrictive mind-set rather than any inherent limitations with the 8x10 format. And by "formal" I mean that I usually set up a more traditional composition, not one with all the WA near-far relationship tricks and endless DOF I usually try to achieve with a 75mm lens in my 4x5 landscape work. I find my work with 8x10 more sedate, simpler and more straightforward than my efforts with 4x5.

 

In any case, good luck with your choice.

I use a 240mm Apo-Sironar S as my moderate wide lens, pretty much my normal lens

actually. I wish I could use more movements sometimes but otherwise I love the lens and

use it the most often. I also have a 360mm Apo-Symmar, so the third (and final) lens of

my kit should round out those two nicely. I had considered the 210mm SS-XL, but it's a

huge piece of glass and I wasn't sure if it would be too close to my 240mm. Anyone out

there use both? Thanks again for all the insights.

If you consider the Super Symmar XL 5.6/210 to be a huge piece of glass, then you haven't seen the old Super Angulon 8/210 yet.

210 mm seems too close to 240 mm to me -- only 14%. Perhaps if you got a bargin and work close to your car, but I wouldn't normally travel with two lenses this close. Perhaps a 165 mm Super-Angulon? Still a large lens, but different enough from 240 mm to be useful, and not quite as wide as 150 mm.