Which 120 mm lens for 4x5?

Hi everyone.

I need a 120mm lens for my 4x5 system.

I am between Nikkor 120 f\8 and the Schneider 120 apo symmar L f\5.6.

I like the large coverage of the first one, and i like the small size and the

luminance of the second, plus the small filter thread (52 mm).

It's important for me, to use with this lens, my Singh-Ray filter system in

cokin P size, that is impossible to use them with my other wide angle lens

(Nikkor SW 90),becouse it has a filter thread 82mm and there is obvious

vignetting with the P size polarizers (so i use the larger Lee system with it).

The Nikkor 120 f\8 has filter thread 77mm.

With the cokin P size would be any vignetting problems?

I am mostly using back movements for landscape (tilt and swing).

Thank you for your advices.

110 XL almost covers 8x10 and takes 52mm filters on the back side where they belong anyway.

 

It is a wonderful lens.

Either the Schneider 120mm Super-Symmar HM (used) or the 110mm SS-XL. The 120 SS-HM

is my preference as it is smaller (67mm filters), lighter, and much less expensive than the

110mm. It's is extremely sharp and also offers ample movements for 4x5 landscape work

compared to other 120mm or 125mm f/5.6 lenses.

FWIW - The 120mm SS HM is only 40g lighter than the 110mm SS XL (negligible difference), takes the same size filters (67mm), and is actually a little physically larger (length) than the 110mm. Not to say it isn't a bad lens, but the main difference is coverage (less coverage for the 120mm SS HM) and price (probably $400 cheaper on the used market).

 

Both are exceptional lenses.

 

I also owned the 120mm APO Symmar L and found it to be a very nice lens, enough coverage for landscape photography and very sharp and compact.

Christos, you mention liking the large coverage of the 120 Nikkor-SW, then say that the movements that you mostly use are back tilt and swing. These movements don't demand extra coverage. For me, it would obvious to get the 120 Nikkor-SW since I like to use movements such as front rise, even for landscapes, which do demand extra coverage. In fact, I used to own and use a 120 Nikkor-SW. Now I have a 110 Super-Symmar-XL. For 4x5, both are very fine lenses. Going by feel rather then specs (which I don't have on hand), the SS-XL is smaller and the 67 mm filter size fits better with my other lenses. But I don't find it to be a stunning advance over the 120 mm Nikkor-SW. The weight difference doesn't seem that large -- the SS-XL is a dense lens. Re the maximum aperture difference: at least the 110 SS-XL that I have is a bit soft off-axis, wide open.

 

"filters on the back side where they belong anyway". I have a different opinion. Using a thick filter on the back of the lens introduces a focus shift. Usually in LF photography there will be enough depth of focus that the focus shift won't matter, but occasionally it might. It's quicker to install the filter, after composing and focusing, on the front of the lens. If the filter is coated, it won't effect the photo.

Three separate camera repairmen have told me that defects on rear elements and filters on the back side of a lens can noticeably affect image quality far more than anything on the front side. In my experience, the front element of a lens can get quite haggard with no noticeable ill effects on image quality. Have never had a lens with a scratch on the rear, but have never had a filter in front of the lens noticeably degrade image quality. It's large format anyhow. You've got image quality up the yazoo, so have to introduce a ton of problems before you noticeably lose any.

 

Keith

I have never heard that you should use the filter in the back of the lens, just close as possible to the lens on the front. So far only large formate would have it?

Any other format has filter on the front so if it would be wrong than I don't think manufacturers would have manufactured lenses different. Also as Michael mentioned it would be twice as difficult to change it when deciding which one you would like to use.

 

It's a lots of talk about filters but do you guys using shade? Which is more important than where to attach the filter.

Anything added to the back of a lens will shift the focus by 1/3rd the thickness of the

filter/gel. In addition, any defects, dust, scratches, lack of parallelism of/on the filter will

effect the final image much more then that identical filter placed on the front of the lens

as the filter is degrading the quality of the image that the lens has produced. Only use a

filter in front unless the filter is part of the optical formula and is designed by the lens

manufacturer and is required to be inside or behind the lens as a design requirement.

And then there may only be one specific filter that works behind the lens. For instance

the corrector plate for the Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital HR lenses is required if an HR

lens is to be used with film rather then digital as the final element in the HR series is

supposed to be the cover glass over the sensor of a digital back.

 

Lastly, you can't control an adjustable filter (polarizer, graduated split ND, etc. that is

behind the lens.

Thank you all for your advices.

Michael your opinion has ever special value for me.

I think seriously to go for the Nikkor SW.

I hope that I was clear enough. For me, the choice between the two lenses of the question, the 120 mm Nikkor-SW and the 120 mm Apo-Symmar, would be easy because I like to use movements that need extra coverage. For a photographer that is sure that will never want to use such movements (all front movements, back shift and rise), the Apo-Symmar L might be more attractive for size, weight and aperture. But maybe someday you will find yourself with a composition in which you want to use front rise... But if you find the Nikkor-SW to heavy to carry, better the lens that you would take with you. I don't know about the current prices of these lenses; of course only used on the Nikkor.

The 1/3 fraction that Bob mentioned comes from the index of refraction of the added rear filter; where a decent guess is its N=1.5 . <BR><BR>The formula is the added optical path length is (N-1)/N times the glass's thickness;<BR><BR> ie (1.5-1)/1.5 ; <BR><BR>ie 0.5/1.5;<BR><BR> ie 1/3 for the factor. <BR><BR> Since the refractive index varies with wavelength with all optical items; an added rear filter might add a tad of color shift too; since one is adding an additional optical item that causes focus shift with wavelength; that was NOT considered in the master optical designers fine design. With a plastic filter the refractive index further varies radically with temperature compared to glass; an added pickle to ponder. <BR><BR> In lenses with rear filters that are built in like my 16mm Nikkor for my Nikon F; the filters are built in; THIN and designed in place when the lens was designed. A blank clear filter is rotated in place when one wants NO FILTER; so the focus is true.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>An ancient 120mm lens for 4x5 press cameras is the 1930's 12cm F6.8 Schneider Angulon; a very compact lens. Post WW2 its the 120mm F6.8 angulon and single coated. This might be a alternate choice for a light weight backpacking rig. Like the 90mm plain Angulon the coverage often is abit optimistic by todays standards; since illumination was more of a criteria in that than balls to the wall killer resolution figures. My old 12cm F6.8 was free with a speed graphic kit that I bought eons ago; thus the price was right:) For a 4x5 press camera the 12cm Angulon did give me movements to shoot buildings with true verticals; with radically more coverage than the plain 127mm ektar which is really a 3x4 camera lens; "pressed:)" into a 4x5 press camera.<BR><BR>

A 1971 catalog here lists the 120mm F6.8 Schneider Angulon as covering 5x7" at infinity and the more expensive F8 super version covering 8x10 inches at infinity; with list prices in Synchro Compur shutter being 160 and a cool 555 bucks respectively. Jeepers; our new VW 1971 Bug was 1999 bucks new and gasoline at 25 to 28 cents! In the Prontor press shutter the 120mm F6.8 Angulon listed at 114 bucks.

Michael, now you are very clear.

The size of the lens is really an important factor for me as the filter size too and i discovered at Schneider optic website, that the APO Symmar L can give 25mm vertical movements with an image circle of 189mm at f\22 but wide open the image circle is only 148mm.

Will be enough to cover all the area of the groundglass for composing and focusing after some rear or back movements?

If yes, maybe the Schneider will be a better solution.

It has only six elements in for groups while the Nikkor has eight elements in four groups.

I think that less glass between object and film gives better resolution (sarpness) and the newer design of the Schneider is an advantage over the older designed Nikkor.

Want do you think?

When you had used the Nikkor,do you remember if it was difficult, to focus in low light conditions?

How important is, the factor f\8 rispect f\5.6 at 120mm focal length?

It isn't simple to say what the correlation is between number of glass elements and sharpness. More elements gives more surfaces to the lens designer to control the light rays and improve the lens performance, so in general more lens elements is better. But the Nikkor-SW has a harder job to do, since it has much more coverage. So from number of elements, I wouldn't guess which lens is sharper. I think both are plenty sharp.

 

I didn't have any problems focusing the 120 Nikkor-SW, but I didn't use it often in dim light. I find that short focal length lenses become difficult on 4x5 at 90 mm, and especially below 90 mm. With these lenses, the outer rays are arriving at an oblique angle to the ground glass. This effect isn't so bad with a 120 mm lens.

 

Re movements: it depends on the photographers taste: some photographers like to use generous movements, others don't. To me, 25 mm vertical rise seems a mere trim adjustment. Sometimes that is all that I want to use. But that might be all that some photographers ever want. Sometimes I want much larger rise, even for landscapes. Re back movements: tilt and swing, especially on a camera with axis movements, don't use up any additional coverage. Hold up a card perpendicular to your vision, then rotate it -- its cross section gets smaller. Shifts and rises, either front or back need excess coverage. Front tilts and swings need excess coverage because they move the optical center ray off the center of the film, but usually for landscapes only a several degrees of tilt is needed, so not much additional coverage.

The Ancient 1930's 12cm F6.8 Schneider Anglon in Compur shutter weights 156.12 grams on the Mettler balance; ie 156 grams rounded to 1 gram.

Many LF lenses are spec'ed for coverage at F22. Usually the illumination dropoff of the edges improves on any lens when stopped down a few stops. This means there is a more uniform exposure across the image when stopping down. The illumination CAN be as good as it can get at faster stops than F22. The further stopping down often reduces far off axis abberations. Plus its the typical F stop that LF lenses use for illumination specs. It doesnt always mean that one HAS to stop down to F22 to get good illumination and sharpness. Each lens design is different.

So if more glass elements improves the lens performance and composing and focusing at f8 isn't a problem, the only disavantage for the Nikkor is its weight.

My last question is how the filter thread diameter of a lens, affects the vignetting effect when a filter is mounted?

I mean, having a polarizer of 82mm diameter (cokin p size), mounted on a lens with 52mm f.t. diameter (Schneider 120 APO S. L) and the same filter of 82mm, mounted on a lens with 77mm f.t. diameter (Nikkor SW 120), what will be happen with front movements?

If the Nikkor needs 77mm of diameter for its lens this means that it is very close to the filter diameter(82mm) and i'm worrying, that with some front or rear movement let's say tilt or swing the filter holder or the polarizers ring could create vignetting.

With a lens of smaller f.t. diameter like Schneider, the effect (vignetting) of the same movements will be the same having the same focal distance (120mm)?

To post better my question, between two lenses with the same focal length but different filter thread diameter, which of them cause more vignetting after a big front movement, having nounted on them a polarizer of 82mm diameter?

Will be the same, or with the biger filter thread lens, will be worse?

I don't think filter vignetting would be problem with an 82 mm filter on the Nikkor-SW. Even if there were slight vignetting, that just means that the coverage is slightly reduced, and the lens has very large coverage for 4x5 so one can afford to lose a little of the coverage.

Don't forget the Osaka 120mm f6.3. Reputed to be a good lens. I bought one a couple of months ago but, alas, haven't had time to even mount it on my 4x5. Cost me just under $500, available from Bromwell Marketing in the U.S. Also sold under the name "Congo" in some places.

 

Has decent coverage and reputed to be very sharp, small and light. Mr. Bromwell is a very attentive seller.

Thank you for your advice Lee.

I listened about this lens and in Europe has the name Congo, but i also listened that it has a very old design.

The diference of the prices (between Congo and Nikkor), is not so big.