wide angle photos that i can look at

i am looking for images of photos made with rodenstock 55mm, and 65

and 75 mm lenses, and schneider 65mm and 75mm.. i would like to see

a few of each with these lenses, and be directed how to find them..

im surprised i didnt take this avenue before.. ive been pussyfooting

around being afraid of buying a super wide angle, single or older

multicoated lens, becouse of the tremendous light falloff, and

distortion.. but my fears may be at least partually unfounded

looking at felixes post and pictures directing me to david kennedys

web site.. i do not need to see alot of pictures of all of these

lenses but a few of them.. i would like to see the new 55mm

rodenstock becouse it is supposed to be really sharp.. any comments

welcome. thanks.. dave..

Dave,

 

I'm not sure if your visual comparison will be valid with all the vagaries inherent in all of us. You wouldn't know who has the better tripod and exposure techniques, who has the better scanners, etc., etc. My scanner is an Epson 1680, which is good, but not as good as a drum scan or a newer flat bed scanner.

 

That being said, I have been nationally published numerous times and I believe an image I made with the Schneider 75mm Super Angulon f/5.6 will be in the July issue of Scientific American, a full page southwest ruin shot. I say I believe because I also use the Schneider 120mm SA and they are very close in perspective. So the conclusion is that the lens is good enough to get you published if that is your intent.

 

You do not need a center filter but the image I'm posting does show some light falloff due to raising a standard to attain the composition I wanted while keeping the ruin walls parallel to the frame edge.

 

This particular lens, in my opinion, is of stellar quality. While you will not have much room for movements, it is made up in its outstanding depth-of-field capabilities.

 

You will not be able to use a thicker polariser without vignetting. You may be able to use a thin profile one but I'm not sure or use a step up ring and wider diameter filter. I usually just figure on cropping out the slight vignette encountered if I need to polarise.

 

good luck,<div></div>

I don't know how you would do an objective comparison of new versus older lenses by looking at photographs from multiple sources and photographers. In the hands of a single photographer a given lens might give a tack sharp well differentiated photograph and the same lens exhibit flare and/or fall off in a different photograph because of different conditions.

 

And why do you not mention Nikon lenses? All three manufacturers produce superb lenses today. As far as light fall-off is concerned, coatings make no difference, it is simply mathematical not glass, coatings etc. I shoot a Nikon 65 SW without a center filter, and I can do any small corrections easily in the darkroom, in reality though I seldom do so as I would burn the edges of my prints normally anyway.

 

If you are trying to make a decision on which focal length to go with I suggest as a "single" source taken by one photographer, looking at Jack Dykinga's book "Large Format Nature Photography" here are many examples of shots taken with both Schneider 58 and 75 mm.

 

BTW, how sharp do you want to get? I suspect that any of today's lenses that are produced will greatly exceed the resolution possible on nearly all emulsions manufactured today at moderate f stop settings. (unless you are shooting on aerial film)

Dave,

 

You did ask for two. I was right on top of this foreground tree and still maintained great DOF. Once again, I'm not the best PS user and only have the light version.

 

The only true way of answering your question would be comparing originals on a light table.

 

cheers,<div></div>

All of the major manufacturers make 65mm and 75mm lenses. Only Rodenstock and

Schneider make anything wider. Remember that the previous discussion was about 65mm

lenses with some references to 75mm lenses. NO mentionof wider lenses and the world

changes dramatically when you go wider than 65mm. While many (like me) find a center

filter unnecessary in most shooting situations with 65mm or 75mm the number of folk

who would shoot without one with a wider lenses is very very small (and does not include

me). Further, many field cameras work fine with a 75mm (and sometimes even 65mm)

lens with a standard bellows. There are very very few that work well with anything wider

unless 1) they have been specifically designed to use wide lenses or 2) allow you to change

to a bag bellows 3) interesting things start to go on when looking at the ground glass with

a very wide lens mounted and 4) perspective control/horizon levelling, etc. become critical

elements of good composition. As for the modern lenses themselves, as with almost all

other focal lengths, more of the differences are a matter of opinion than of optics. They

are all sharp, high resolution multicoated lenses. For example, I seriously doubt that the

55mm Rodenstock is any "sharper" than the 58mm Schneider. Finally, what will you be

using the lens for, architecture? Or are you interested in panoramic photography? If the

latter then a very wide lens is not usually the answer.

so far i am totally impressed with all the photos ive looked at.. i would say my fears are unfounded, and will try to buy a super wide this summer...yes light falloff is a slight problem without a 350 dollar centerfilter in some situations but all the photos i get back are not pefect awith the 90 and 135. .. when i need to cover a shot i want a wide angle, not for daily use.. im very interested in seeing any photos from the new rodenstock 55, and yes ill look at pricing for the nikon 65, but i havnt seen one "used" yet, i did not know it exsited.. dave.

My portfolio (here) on photo.net is almost entirely 75mm and 90mm

grandagon shots. My website (perpeturally under construction) has a few

with a 58XL, as well as a few others.

Nice work Jonathan! Can I ask how you scanned your 4x5 transparencies (what equipment?).

Thank you Dave. Nice to say. Though it IS commercial work... so I dunno - I

always feel a bit bashful about that stuff because I don't think it really

represents my talent. But one day I'll get some more personal stuff up there.

Anyway - the scanning was done from NEG - not from chrome - on a

Linotype-Hell Saphir (paid close to $4200 for it originally!). It's an

EXCELLENT scanner - and it's still going strong after 7 years. But the

software has a real learning curve to it. You COULD use other software - but

the results would not be as good. The S/W is Linocolor Lite 4.1. It's basically

a light version of their drum scanner and Topaz S/W. They were SUCH

underrated scanners. Basically a UMAX PowerLook scanner that was

hotrodded witha different (brighter more stable) light source for better

dMax, better internal shielding for lower noise and REALLY good S/W.

Makes ALL the difference. I still think it'd blow any Epson out of the water if

you know what you're doing. Let me know if you have any other Q's...