Newbie question about panoramic 6x17

Hi,

As geographer/cartographer, that's long time hat I'm interrested into panoramic

pictures. I stitched manualy or digitaly, plenty of pics.

I'm also "playing" with some vintage camera.

Now I'm thinking to by a panoramic 6x17 camera (Fotoman or Gaoersi).

The question is what's the best lens size for landscape pics?

90mm? or less or more?

Thanks for any advice.

Jean

Hello Jean,

The choice of a lens for the 6x17 panoramic format depends on your taste and on your subjects, but having used a Super Angulon 8/90mm on a Gaoersi 6x17 for a brief time (a stunning camera at a very attractive price), I can say that 90mm is the widest I would go. I would strongly recommend a center filter on a 90mm lens. For me, it was almost too wide and I would have prefered something like a 150mm lens. On the other hand, bear in mind the problem of DOF with longer lenses.

The link will lead you to the first picture I took with the Gaoersi and the 90mm lens, without a center filter.

Regards

Aender<div></div>

If you like extremely wide photographs, get a 90mm. It's horizontal angle of view is about

that of an 22-24 mm lens on a 24x36mm (standard 35mm SLR) format camera.

My choice would be a Fotoman with a 110mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL.

Hi Jean. I think 90mm is a bit wide and second Ellis's recommendation of the 110XL lens. Here is a 6x17 shot taken with this lens on my 4x5 camera:

http://www.photo.net/photo/3824141&size=lg

Brett

Something to consider... what is the ACTUAL perspective of a given focal length when

applied to wide aspect ratio formats? In other words... think in terms of the vertical angle

of coverage, rather than the horizontal or diagonal.

One way to look at 617 is that in reality it is just three (3) 6x6 images contiguous to one

another. Now think about JUST ONE of those 6x6 contiguous images. From a perspective

point of view, a 90mm lens on 6x6 provides an angle of view of just under 35 degrees

(horizontal and vertical)... what we term as "normal" perspective, or a slightly long

"normal" lens for the 6x6 format.

Assuming the 90mm lens covers 6x17, what is captured has the same perspective as a

"normal" lens on 6x6... BUT 3 times as wide. This is true no matter what 6x6 section you

crop from a 6x17 image. Place a person anywhere in the 617 image, crop it to 6x6, and it

might as well have been taken with a Hasselblad. So in reality, a 90mm lens on 617

demonstrates "normal" perspective, BUT with a wider field of view.

It is for this reason that the 90mm focal length has become the most often selected lens

for 6x17 format... it renders perspective "normally".

Does that make it the "best" landscape focal length for 6x17? Maybe... maybe not... but it

certainly is "normal".

FWIW - if I'm going to be shooting 617, and ONLY taking one lens... I take a 90mm.

Jean, a very interesting question...I have always used 90mm f8 Super Angulon lenses or their Caltar MC derivatives on my Obsession 617`s with great success. I also found that in most cases using a center filter wasn`t necessary.

Paul is correct when he states that a single frame would be best suited to this focal length and consideration should be given to the vertical, but something I have noticed is slightly distorted images, especially of buildings in the extreme corners of a 6x17 image when using a 90mm.

Buildings appear to stretch as the image approaches the far reaches of the edge of the film. I haven`t had the oppurtunity to try the newer XL series to see if the same thing happens.

As an attempt to correct this stretching, my current build camera is to be fitted with a 115mm f 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon, I`ll be losing a little in angle of view, but it might just correct the problem.

I have also noticed that a 180mm is popular on this format, I`ve even been asked for a 300mm!........

Regarding perspective and "spreading" at the far edges and corners: You'll get this to some extent from any wide angle lens. (It's only wide-angle relative to the film format....) It's just a function of the angle of view at the ends of the image.

I don't know how severe an effect you're willing to put up with. Hopefully the 115mm will render things a bit more to your liking, but you'll still get some of that "spread" at the ends.

I'd imagine that the way to overcome this would be to shoot separate pictures and stitch them or make a triptych. Using a swing-lens camera will distort straight horizontal lines pretty terribly....

Good luck!

Re the perspective effective of stretching in the corners of the image when a short focal

length lens is used: as Michael H. says, you will get this with any lens of the particular

focal length. (This is assuming

lenses of normal perspective rendering; of course fisheye lenses will give a completely

different and much more distorted rendering.) There's no way to avoid the problem

(except by using a longer lens and showing a less wide view), it's because the print is

showing a wide angle of view but we are viewing the print from a distance large compared

to the (enlarged) focal length of the lens. It's the opposite of the better known telephoto

effect, in which the image seems compressed.

Another discussion with an example photo: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=009PfC

You can search this forum and ask your question here also.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/6x17/

I believe you will look at your subjects differently when using 6x17. A 19/20 mm lens did not interest me in 35mm (or its equivalent in other formats). But in 6x17, I find it to be ideal. I wouldn't want any wider and a 180 would be nice from time to time but I have no problem with using the 90. Some suggestions are:

Use the viewfinder before you set up the camera. Get down low (It's not always the right viewpoint but try it out - it works often). Learn to judge 5, 6 and 7 feet and meters (you'll be scale focusing). Think composition constantly - it's not what you are used to but addictive when you begin to feel the format.

Mike