Large format as a cure to wide angle corners

<p>Dear all,<br />

<br />

I'm coming from a 35mm digital system, and I'd always planned to get a large format camera to play with. My

biggest motivator has been when taking a wide-angle landscape shot, wanting to make a large print and stand with

my nose to the middle of the frame to get as immersive an experience as possible.<br />

<br />

My first attempt at this, with a 12 megapixel Nikon D700, simply ran out of pixels. Now I have a 36 megapixel

D800E (36x24mm sensor, for anyone not used to dabbling in the toy formats), and I'm running out of lens instead -

at least in the corners. I have a Nikkor 14-24mm, which is generally considered to be pretty competent, but it

can't keep the corners (reasonably) sharp for me. The Zeiss 21mm is another option, as a lens with a stellar

reputation, but even that seems to struggle in the corners on a D800E.<br />

<br />

So, before all the film supplies dry up, I'd been looking longingly at a cheap 5x4 (such as a Horseman 450LE,

unless there's a reason I shouldn't go with one of these - I appreciate the difficulties of carting a monorail in

the field, but I won't be taking it far and my 35mm kit is heavier...) and the second-hand market for, say, 47mm

and 65mm f/5.6 super angulons. I'm assuming I'll be drum scanning the results.<br />

<br />

I'm now concerning myself with the corner performance of the large format lenses, assuming that I'm stopping down

to f/16-ish. At least one review seemed reasonably complimentary of the 65mm (at least, the corner numbers for

lppmm were reasonable), but a full analysis of these lenses is defeating my google-fu. Are either of these lenses

(or any viable alternative) likely to do better than my 135-format options?<br />

<br />

I'm considering the 47mm to be vaguely equivalent in field of view to my 135-format 14mm, and the (cheaper) 65mm

lens to be roughly 18mm equivalent in 135 terms (from the long edge in both cases). The latter may well be wide

enough for most of my shots, but knowing the relative performance of the two would be helpful.<br />

<br />

Or shall I just give up and resort to stitching? Any assistance (other than "stop pixel peeping") is gratefully

received - I'm a large-format novice.</p>

<p>You need to be careful about which 47 you get--older ones will only cover 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and will definitely show vignetting and poor corner resolution on 4x5. Covering power is one of those things that comes up with large format that most photographers have never had to think about. Without enough, the movements that cause the size and weight of the camera to increase are useless. As for the question of digital SLR vs. large format film, they are totally different ways of working. I genuinely enjoy the necessary slowing down that the 4x5 necessitates for what I like to do, not that I would prescribe it for everybody. For me, the look of silver prints from large format negatives is still more satisfying than the digital B&W that I have seen in person, but I will freely confess that this is biased by 30 years of experience with 4x5 cameras and darkroom work. My commercial work is completely digital and has been for a number of years, but I still miss the more "hands on" medium of film.</p>

<p>Thanks, Andrew. My feeling is that slowing down to take a shot - especially landscapes - would do me good as a photographer, so I'm not too scared of that. I'm not sure that the mechanics will slow me down - even with bag bellows - as much as knowing that each shot is costing so much... Thanks for the heads-up: I'll look into the 47mm variants and check what I might be signing up for.<br />

<br />

Still, any feedback on how good those wide lenses with real 5x4 coverage might be, compared with their 35mm equivalents, would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>You say yourself " ... before all the film supplies dry up ... " - to be honest, I wouldn't bet on color film being around for too much longer. Purely technically, I would think making big high-resolution prints would be far easier using a moderate wide-angle lens on a digital camera (much easier to get good edge performance for a reasonable price) and stitching multiple exposures together. This is of course to disregard the unquantifiable experience of working with LF (I presume you are thinking of using LF film, not a digital back) but as I say I think it's a bit late in the day to start LF color work with film. A further factor is that 90mm is the normal wide-angle lens for 4x5 - 65mm is considered extreme and anything wider is what I call a "last gasp" lens, used in practice only by professional architectural photographers who HAVE to get a picture even in city centers and very confined spaces - not many examples of these lenses about, definitely not cheap.</p>

<p>Hi David. I'd actually value a comment on the film situation. The two colour films of most interest to me are Portra (because of its dynamic range when scanned), which Kodak are planning to get rid of but seem to be hoping that someone else will continue, and Velvia, which I'm hoping may be continuing in Velvia 100 form but Fuji are definitely discontinuing in 50 and 100F form for large formats (I need to try some of my 135 Velvia 100 film and remind myself whether I can live with that, or whether I should fill a freezer with Velvia 50). However, so long as I can get it developed, I <i>am</i> prepared to stick a load in the freezer - I don't expect to spend all that much time shooting it, so it should last. And I'd always have black and white - or a scanning back, after saving up - to fall back on. I've got to say that I'm more nervous about going to 5x4 than I was a couple of years ago, though.<br />

<br />

As for lens prices, I remain a bit astonished at the current new large format lens prices. Let's say that they don't hold their value very well... the going rate for, say, a used 65mm f/5.6 Super Angulon seems to be about £250. I can stretch that far - and I'm used to wider angles from my 14-24 lens, so the exotic ultrawide nature doesn't bother me. Used, I could buy a 65 and a 47, a 5x4 and some film for less than the price of only a 21mm Zeiss for my Nikon. It balances out when the per-shot price is included (especially with drum scans), but if it would get me the shots I'd want, I'd do it. However, if it won't, I'll concentrate on less exotic glass if and when I get a 5x4 and worry about stitching in digital instead. Incidentally, I presume there's no longer lens with enough coverage for it to be worth me trying to stitch 5x4 images?</p>

<p>What's that coverage? -<br>

<a href="https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm">https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm</a></p>

<p>What's the age of this hunk? -<br>

<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/">http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/</a><br>

Some tidbits of info.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Jim</p>

 

<p>I'd say you should give it a try. Buy used and you'll reasonably be able to resell without much loss. Your biggest difficulties are going to be composing and focusing with the ultrawides, they are much more difficult to use than longer focal length lenses. You'll also find that the process of shooting/scanning film introduces many more difficulties than the D800... lots of things that can go wrong and you'll need a good scanner to pull more detail than the very good D800E. Color correction and dynamic range will also be challenges. You'll also need to think about thinks like center filters and grad filters, depending on what you're shooting. </p>

<p>For lenses the 47mm Super Angulon XL is the only lens that will cover 4x5 with good performance. The older 47mm lenses aren't going to do as well for you. The 58mm Super Angulon XL is good too, and also very wide. Both of those can push close to $1k on the used market though. A 65mm lens is a good starting point to see if you like the results and want to push further. For stitching with 4x5, the 72mm Super Angulon XL actually has enough coverage to to that, and is a very good lens. Heck, if you want to go up in format and shoot wide, use the 72mm on 5x7 film! :-)</p>

<p>When you say that you wanted to get your nose up close to immerse yourself in the photo, in other words, as if you were actually "there" it made me think you would be happy with a panoramic camera that takes a good 120 degree or wider photo. Have you thought about panoramics?</p>

<p>Jim: Thank you, good reading.<br />

<br />

Sheldon: Thank you - that might put me off the affordable 47mm idea. The 65mm might suffice for me if the older multicoated variant still does sharpish corners. Alas, 5x7 film is even harder to come by than 5x4. Centre filters had been bothering me a little for Velvia (less so for Portra if I can rely on the dynamic range). Having luxuriated in cameras with TTL meters for a while, the whole exposure thing worries me somewhat. It feels as though it ought to be possible to use a non-fresnel ground glass and meter off that (inside a hood), stopped down, with my DSLR - which ought to allow for extension and vignetting - so long as I allow for the transmissivity of the glass. But I don't know whether that's optimistic crazy talk. I'm not too scared of calculating exposures the hard way, but stick some tilt in there and give me a variable subject and the idea of the dynamic range of Velvia starts to worry me.<br />

<br />

I'm assuming that, by the time I've paid to get this stuff developed and taken a shot that justifies having used any 5x4 film in the first place, I may as well get it drum scanned, which should make the best of whatever dynamic range is available. I'll contemplate my options.<br />

<br />

Tom: I hadn't (much), but I will. I'd prefer a more regular frame, though.</p>

<p>Some further comments--you will definitely want a fresnel for the finder with wide angle lenses, without it seeing the corners becomes a severe challenge. For landscape work, extension is rarely an issue for exposure, so I wouldn't worry about using the finder to compensate for magnification. Also, landscape work doesn't generally require the extreme movements that architectural or product photography can.<br>

You could probably use your digital SLR in spot mode for metering at least initially, although a regular spot meter would be smaller and lighter. As for lenses, I have a 65 mm f/4.5 Caltar II N that has given me excellent results. These were made by Rodenstock and are identical in specs to their Grandagon series, and imported to the US by Calumet. They were slightly cheaper than the Rodenstock equivalents when new and seem to be the same now as used lenses. Good luck!</p>

Andrew, I suggest you look at a second hand Cambo Wide with either the 65mm SA or later 58mm SA XL. Extremely portable, rugged,

and relatively quick to use. You can use readily available 120 roll film for 6x12 format (don't dismiss this format before you see it, plus it's

easily cropped). Solves many of your issues for less pain.

<p>Andrew: Thank you, you make large format sound much less scary! My default plan was to use my DSLR as a spot meter for the scene - I'm likely to have it with me anyway for those "not quite worth wasting a sheet on" moments - but I'd only been thinking about non-fresnel glass for metering on the assumption that the camera movements would throw my calculations off. I'll certainly look into your suggested lens. I'm in the UK, if that adjusts your expectations of what I can find.<br />

<br />

Rod: Thanks for the tip, I'll check those too. I'm a little hazy on the specs of most view cameras, never having really played with one - I'm doing a lot of peering at images and trying to make sense of the geometry (at least I've used T-S lenses in 35mm). The lack of tilt on the Cambo Wide worries me a bit (not that I'd get much from an affordable ultrawide anyway), but I'll certainly learn more.</p>

<p>Take a gander at some youtube video spots like this one ... basic "how to" -<br>

<a href="

<p>Back to school reading :o) -<br>

<a href="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/HMArtls.html">http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/HMArtls.html</a><br>

(everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask) The Merklinger book can be found at Scribd for download, and probably other sites (or public library). Check out all the links on that page and save them for your library.</p>

<p>I'm new to LF too, about a year now. What a hoot! I found an old, yet pristine, Calumet CC-400 with 210 Symmar-S, carry case, about 15 film holders, roll film holder for 120, a decent loupe and focus cloth on eBay for a total of about $300 USD (a real steal, in my opinion).<br>

That's not nearly as wide as you want to go, but the image quality is phenomenal to say the least.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

 

<p>Cool - thanks for the tips, Jim. Actually, having used TS lenses before and having a mathematical bent, Scheimpflug doesn't scare me (besides, if it's not much easier to deal with given a big ground glass at the focal plane, I'll dine on some headwear). <i>Metering</i> scares me, but maybe more than it should for my landscape aspirations - though knowing that there's a finite quantity of film to waste doesn't help. I'm sure I'll go LF anyway, for fun, but it sounds as though 65mm is the affordable starting point for a wide lens with decent corners. I'll go hunting for lens reviews - funny how there are more of them for 135 film - but I'd still value any further advice that 5x4 wide shooters can provide.</p>

<p>Incidentally, to summarize, am I right in understanding that, of the f/5.6 lenses and corner performance, "47mm Super Angulon bad, 47mm Super Angulon <b>XL</b> good, 65mm Super Angulon also ok?" There definitely seems to be a premium with the XL lenses, but if the 65mm is the exception of decent performance at a low price then it may be my best bet. (Schneiders seem to turn up on the used sites I'm checking; I'll look for other brands shortly, but Rodenstocks seem to be rarer.)</p>

<p>If you check the 65 mm Schneider Super Angulons, you will find f/8 and f/5.6 versions. The f/5.6 will have a bit more covering power, and with a 65 mm on 4x5 every little bit helps.</p>

<p>Thanks, Andrew - I'd spotted that and, since the f/5.6 65mm SA is affordable (at least, a fraction of the XL lenses), that was the one I was primarily investigating, <i>if</i> it's good enough.</p>

<p>" I'll look for other brands shortly, but Rodenstocks seem to be rarer.)"<br>

Unlikely, Recent Calumet Caltars and all Sinar Sinarons are private label Rodenstock lenses. So besides Rodenstock branded lenses you can also get a Rodenstock with either of the above.</p>

<p>Ah, thank you, Bob. I've still not seen so many on the couple of sites I've checked in the UK so far, but at least they exist. I'll keep checking - cheers for the heads-up. (Unhelpfully, the used camera sites in the UK seem not to know much more about these lenses than I do...)</p>

<p>You need to be careful that the camera you select accommodates the lens you want to use. Some graphic type cameras do allow much movement with 65mm lenses. Sometimes the movements are stiff because the bellows are compressed, sometimes the bed gets in the way. Just ask somebody who has used the camera if it is a potential problem before you buy anything. A monorail will not have this problem at all. </p>

<p>Also, when you make the decision to start shooting large format, be aware there is a ton of other crap you need to have with you beyond camera and lenses. Meter, dark cloth, loupe, film holders, tripod. It makes for a pretty big bag. Also, try and think through the whole workflow, film management, developing, scanning, editing.</p>

<p>Good Luck with everything. I started about a year ago and will not be going back, way too much fun.<br /><br /></p>

<p>:-) Thanks, Seth. I'd been looking at monorails (partly for the movements, partly because they're half the price) on the assumption that I either won't take them far, or that I need the exercise. A friend took her field camera rock climbing in Zion and never used it... I choose to plan ahead. Fortunately, bag bellows don't seem to expensive, although everything adds up. Finding someone who used a camera that I want to buy from a reputable used camera store might be harder, but hopefully my research will suffice.<br />

<br />

The thing that's worrying me at the moment - apart from all the film disappearing - is that I'm going to have to work out how to load film in a house where every room has windows (and the same for my work place); if only there was still Quickload. I've no idea if you can load a 5x4 in a dark bag without getting stuff on it... After that, I've no interest in gassing myself with chemicals and I'm quite happy to send stuff off to be developed, especially for Velvia - and I'm hoping cheapdrumscanning.com sticks around (it'd take a while to justify a V750). Fortunately, those dumping large format cameras on the used market mostly seem to be dumping the accessories, too. I'm currently looking at a tripod upgrade (055CXPro3 to either a RRS TVC-33 or Gitzo 5532LS), but that'll be useful for 35mm anyway.<br />

<br />

My current (main) camera bag holds a D800e, D700, 500 f/4, 200 f/2, 80-200 f/2.8, 14-24 f/2.8, 150 f/2.8 and some smaller primes. Unless I go 10x8 (unlikely given the film availability situation) I suspect large format isn't going to make matters worse. :-) However, I may be made unduly optimistic by noting that my friend's field camera weighed less than a Nikon F5 - this may not be so true of, say, a Horseman 450LE, but a quick rummage <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/mono-field.html">here</a> suggests that even this weighs only about as much as my 200 f/2 and one of the DSLRs. Though I might get some exercise before I try to use it to capture dawn at <a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Snowdon,+Llanberis&hl=en&ll=53.069548,-4.064126&spn=0.006085,0.011845&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=6.266512,12.128906&oq=snowd&t=h&hnear=Snowdon&z=16">Glaslyn</a>, especially using a DSLR as a meter.<br />

<br />

Thanks for the advice. I'm glad I'm not alone in moving in this direction (it makes me wonder if Fuji know what they're doing by discontinuing their larger format films). I keep hoping that Amateur Photographer in the UK might try to get people into large format - it's still a viable upgrade from a small DSLR for some uses.</p>

<p>A changing bag is exactly what you need, even if you do decide to brave chemistry. There are a lot of ways of developing film in lightproof tanks. Get a changing bag with a tent frame inside; I have one made be Photoflex also sold by Calumet which works well. I have loaded and unloaded hundreds of sheets of film on location with this with no dust problems. One other device worth having--a small vacuum cleaner to clean sheet film holders each time you are about to load them. I have a small cordless model made by Black and Decker with interchangeable batteries that can clean 30+ holders on a charge. Dirty holder=black spots on transparency film and a lot of Photoshop time cleaning them up.</p>

<p>A bag bellows and a recessed lens board should solve the movement problem with most cameras for a 65 mm lens--shorter than that might be difficult with some designs.</p>

<p>Ah, thank you Andrew, that's very reassuring (and helpful advice). I'll see what I can find.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

A problem with very wide lenses I didn't see mentioned is the recessed lens board which is awkward to use. I suppose you could get use to it. That said, I never had one but have shot with friends who did and they seem to be a huge problem, in addition to the expensive center filter needs and the bag bellows.<br>

I use a Schneider 75mm f/5.6 Super Angulon, regular bellows on a Monorail which has worked well for me over the years getting close to the subject, but it also has a vignetting possibility if I use fall or rise too much.<br>

It might be a cheaper alternative though. <br>

I also may have the last box of Fuji Quikload in the universe, in my freezer, while waiting for motivation to shoot it.<br>

good luck, </p>

 

<blockquote>A problem with very wide lenses I didn't see mentioned is the recessed lens board which is awkward to use. I suppose you could get use to it. That said, I never had one but have shot with friends who did and they seem to be a huge problem, in addition to the expensive center filter needs and the bag bellows.</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes, I wondered about recessed boards. I'm leaning quite firmly towards a 65mm f/5.6 Super Angulon, mostly on the basis that I can find them for sale in the UK fairly easily and cheaply, and a Horseman 450LE (for the same reason, plus a review of successfully using one in the field). Bag bellows don't seem to be too hard to find; it looks to me as though the 450LE should allow the standards to get close enough that I needn't worry too much about a recessed board, but actually finding any kind of specification on this is a bit tricky. (I also don't know whose boards are interchangeable, being new to this kind of thing.) I think I read a review suggesting that this lens didn't need a centre filter, but now I look again, it seems it does - which is a shame, because the filter seems to be substantially more expensive than the lens, mostly because I can't find it used. I don't mind fixing up most films in post, but if I'm going to run out of Velvia's dynamic range then a centre filter it is. Fingers crossed I can avoid the problem if I get a normal lens as well.<br />

<br />

All else being equal, I'd prefer to aim a little wider than the 75mm unless there's a significant performance improvement from the longer lens - too much field of view that I can then crop is better than too little. The price seems equivalent (and it takes the same filter) - though if the filter makes much less difference to it than to the 65, that might swing me to the longer lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>I also may have the last box of Fuji Quikload in the universe, in my freezer, while waiting for motivation to shoot it.<br />

good luck,</blockquote>

 

<p>Meh, give it ten years and it'll be worth a fortune on ebay. But I sympathize - I have a load of smaller format film in the fridge which is very out of date. I'm guessing that splitting the twenty pack of 5x4 Velvia up a bit might be a good thing - repeatedly defrosting the whole lot so that I can load some dark slides with a small number of sheets doesn't seem like a good idea, and I suspect lifting out individual frozen sheets isn't so clever either... I've never had this problem with roll film!<br />

<br />

Thanks for your support. :-)</p>