rodenstock 55mm

i would like to buy a rodenstock 55mm wide angle for my crown

graphic..i feel the bed will cut about 1/2 to 3/4 inch off the long

side of the negative.. i can live with that... im normally a strait

on shooter, live in montana, and love to photograph glacier and

waterton park when i can get up there.. i want the super wide to

cover without the bother and distortion of tilts etc.. i will use it

when my 90 wont cover.. what say you all??? im an ameture, and like

super clear, sharp, distortion free scenics with velvia... dave..

I'd say you'd better be able to get pretty close to those glaciers, otherwise that 55mm will make them look like ice cubes.

The Grandagon-N 55 mm lens just barely covers the 4 x 5 format. There would be considerable fall off of illumination towards the edges and corners, and very likely you would need a center filter to compensate.

 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the distortion of tilts. If you tilt the back, then you would of course create convergence of verticals, which may be what you mean. But tilting the back (or front) won't have a significant effect on what is in the field of view, so why would you be doing that? More likely you would be using a rise, fall, or horizontal shift to get what you want in the frame.

 

Such a wide angle lens will also introduce perspective "distortions". These are not actualy distortions but result from the fact that prints would not be typically viewed from the center of perspective. Shapes on the edges may appear greatly distorted, although this may not be so important for landscapes.

 

You might also consider getting a more capable view camera. A Shen Hao, for example, might not cost you any more than the 55 mm lens you contemplate buying, and it would give you much more flexibility with your existing lenses.

 

(Please excuse my telling you what to do, but implicit in your post there seems to be a question of whether or not this is a good idea. Otherwise, it just seems a statement of purpose needing no further comment.)

I have a 47mm SA which does not cover 4x5 but will cover 6x12 , I love my lens and the panorama ability is incredible . I think you will find super wides are difficult to master as not many situations call for them however with nothing else will do it is the obvious choice. I have noted at workshops that many peole have tried them and don't like them as they are difficult and coverage is always an issue. I bought a 65mm SA after I got the 47 and found I never used it coverage was defineatly a problem and it was neither super wide or wide so I sold it and bought a 75mm SA and it is now my most used lens it has decent coverage and I do not use a center filter ad do not find the falloff objectionable. I have no experience with the rodenstock line in superwides but they are supposed to be great. I hope this helps you and by the way the 47XL SA will cover 4x5 if you want the widest possible frame. cheers George

The lens is splendidly sharp -- but the light fall off is considerable -- you can see it in the two images here. Additionally, it is very difficult to compose and focus -- because of the low light on the ground glass. There are times when it is the perfect lens -- but those times are rare. It did require some modification of the stardard recessed lens board for the graphic view -- however -- was easily fitted into a recessed board for my wista. These two images are notoriously bad for a variety of reasons (not the fault of the lens), but may serve to illustrate Leonards point.

 

http://shawnkielty.com/home/ShawnKieltyStudio.jpg Shot with my graphic view with 55mm Grandagon on poloroid 54 giving some indication of what you might expect from this lens -- sorry about the dusty scan.

 

http://shawnkielty.com/RedwoodNP/fernCanyon.html might give an idea of what happens in a landscape -- this image isn't great -- because I shot the 4x5 transparency off the light table with my digital. The relative size of the landscape dimishes substantially as the distance increases.

shawn,would the wall on the right and the drapes on the left still be leaning out if the lens was perfectly level? i really dont see the terrible light falloff your talking about.. the view of the room must entail an in credible expanse?... whish i could take a couple shots to see if id like one... shawn, are you going to keep this lens or do you not like it and its problems, or do you find it has its purpose?? i have a sa 90 f8, it does a good job except its hard to set up becouse of the low light on the fresnell, so the set up problems is a big negative to me on the r 55.. what lens would you recomend now that i have a 90? someone above said the 75 sa was a good lens?? other comments?. the cost is incredable so i would err on the side of caution dave... thanks dave.

>shawn,would the wall on the right and the drapes on the left still >be leaning out if the lens was perfectly level?

 

No. I don't think this is a normal (meaning perpendicular, strait on -- as you say) shot, because that amount of perpective distortion isn't entirely a function of the lens -- but rather adjustment of the camera, and my inability to see the image well with out a fresnel or brightscreen. This is compounded by the distance of those lines from the center of the image. In all fairness to the lens, these straight lines demonstrate the absence of any barrel or pincushion distortion.

 

>i really dont see the terrible light falloff your talking about..

 

If you were to evaluate a line from the top left diagonally through the bottom right you will notice a gradual darkening from the center of the lens to the corners -- Where the cushion on the chair is exposed well and the sheet of white paper in the foreground and opposing wall and curtains are all some variety of white. The sheet of paper pretty clearly demonstrates the light falling off toward the edge of the image. I don't think it's "terrible" -- just worth consideration. It would be true in any lens this wide.

 

the view of the room must entail an in credible expanse?... The room is 11-12' from where I am standing to the opposite wall. The lens is marked on the side 110 degrees. so you might be able to take a fair picture of a small bathroom -- and it might look quite large.

 

shawn, are you going to keep this lens or do you not like it and its problems, or do you find it has its purpose??

 

I will keep this lens - sorry Dave.

 

>i have a sa 90 f8, it does a good job except its hard to set up >becouse of the low light on the fresnell, so the set up problems is >a big negative to me on the r 55.. what lens would you recomend now >that i have a 90? someone above said the 75 sa was a good lens?? >other comments?. the cost is incredable so i would err on the side >of caution dave... thanks dave.

 

 

I am not trying to discourage you -- I find this lens to be really great *sometimes*. It's really great when I want everything in focus. and the central subject is close to the lens -- or when I want the landscape to look really vast - or whhen I really need to squeeze alot int a small spsce -- In some spaces -- like fern canyon -- it seems imperative. If you have a brightsceen or fresnel -- you may find it easier to setup than I do.

Already got a 90mm? Since you are only doing 4x5, why not try a 75mm? A slower 75mm is relatively cheap. Your next step down could then be a 65mm, also relatively inexpensive, and then decide if you really want to splurge for a 55-58mm Apo or XL unit. Or just try out a 65mm to start with and go from there.

 

Keep in mind that these steps for wide angles are actually fairly substantial since even a 15-20% increase in angle of view is a lot in the world of wide-angles (as you would be doing with the 55mm<-->65mm, 65mm<-->75mm and 75mm<-->90mm jumps), especially when doing interiors or commerical work with closeups where short coverage is not an issue. If you've ever worked with a good selection of wide-angles in 35mm format you'll already know this (like using a 14mm, 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm). This same philosophy works when using the shorter wide-angles view camera lenses with larger sheet film, such as a 90mm-120mm WA with an 8x10 camera for interiors or closeups.