Any Suggestons for small, light 75mm lens?

I'm thinking of adding a 75mm lens for 4x5. The ones I've seen

pictures of such as the F5.6 Super Angulon and the comparable

Rodenstock look a lot like my 90mm F5.6 Super Angulon, i.e. big and

heavy. I'm into small and light these days. Does anyone have a

recommendation for a 75mm lenses that is reasonably small and light?

Used is o.k., F8 is o.k. but anything smaller isn't, single coated is

o.k. but uncoated isn't. Thanks.

I believe I posted a similar question about two months ago. It was either here or in rec.photography.equipment.large-format. There were a large number of answers.

The Rodenstock Grandagon N 75mm F6.8 is smaller, but still not that small. I have only viewed one, never used it in anger.

Brian, at 665 grams your 90/5.6 is much heavier than my 75/5.6 Super Angulon which weighs 380 grams. I have on the wall in front of me a 20x24 inch print taken from a drum-scanned tranny made using this lens, of the Orangerie at Versailles, and it's incredibly sharp right to the edges. The 80/4.5 XL is listed as 271 grams, but it's more expensive.

My 75mm/4.5 Nikkor-SW is pretty compact-and a beautiful lens. It takes a 67mm filter, to give you an idea of its size. It seems a little smaller than its companion, the 90mm/8.

The schneider super angulon 75mm f8 is listed as 415 grams.

My suggestion is to go for the Schneider super symmar Xl 80mm f4.5 which is only 270 grams.

 

Alternatives: the horseman ER 75mm f5.6 is only 150g, but i doubt you will be able to find one. According to the rodenstock site, there is a f6.8 version of the 75mm grandago which is smaller than the f4.5, but it does not give the weight.

 

Question: do you need ful 4x5 coverage or are you shooting a roll film back? The rodenstock ysaron 75mm or the tominon 75mm were made for polaroids, but are very small and light. They will cover 6x9 or 6x7 just fine.

I have a late Grandagon N 75 6.8 and it is a bit smaller than anything else in the range that I know of with the exception of the Super Symmar 80. It is very sharp in the center but the image circle isn't as big as most of the modern 75s.

The 75mm f/6.8 Grandagon-N weighs about 335g in a Copal-0 shutter.

I used to own an f8 75mm Fujinon and it was a good deal smaller than the Super Angulon f5.6 I have now. Can't recall exact details and couldn't find the data in a quick search just now.

 

As stated earlier the issue with the SA is mroe size than weight. It is not a heavyweight but it is one of the bulkier lenses I carry. BTW I totally agree with its performance as stated earlier.

Brian,

 

I have a 90mm Rodenstock 6.8 and a 75mm Caltar II-N 6.8 MC (Rodenstock). Both are multicoted. Both bought used around $400 - $500. I got the 90mm first and like it but its big and heavy and well, just not wide enough for most of what I like to shoot. So then I got the 75mm. I like it alot! Smaller and WIDER! Not as much room for movements as the 90mm with 4x5. I shoot mostly a 6x9 roll film back on a Horseman 45/FA, and have plenty of room for movements, and still be in the "sweet spot" of the lens. If I had to choose again, I would buy the same lenses. Note: I can't use lenses with a rear element lens bezel diameter larger than 63mm on the 45/FA, so that limited my choices. f/6.8 is only slightly darker than 5.6, and I have had no problems focusing.

 

Dee

Brian, it takes a real wide angle design to cover a 6 1/2" diagonal 3 inches away. None of the smaller double gauss designs can do it like they can at 90mm. The best and smallest is the 75 6.8 Grandagon (Caltar II N). <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2937776146&category=30076&rd=1">Here's</a> a neat little 65 that grew out of old Ilex's affiliation with Calumet in the late '60's. I had a 90 like this and it was every bit as nice as any of the Super Angulons of the same era. A true 105 degree lens. Maddening that the filters have to be slip on but with something this wide perhaps it makes sense.