Caltar f4.5 90mm vs Nikkor SW f4.5 90mm?

[syd]

Hello all,

 

I have decided to purchase a fast 90 for my LF work and have just

found two of the above mentioned lenses for very good prices

used...infact they are very close in price and I am wondering which of

the two is the lighter lens and if there are distinguishable

differences in performance between the two?

 

Is one sharper than the other? Does one have better resolution than

the other? Is one contrastier than the other? I have been scouring the

net and cannot find any real world comparisons between the two by

those who have used them. Hence this post is my last resort. Can

anybody enlighten me?

 

Best regards, Simon.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Both are excellent lenses. The 90mm f/4.5 Caltar-IIN is made by Rodenstock who sell it as

the Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon. "View Camera" published an excellent article

about the Nikon large format lenses by Kerry Thalmann within the past year.

 

And yes I've used both but own the Caltar. The color rendition is slightly different between

the two brands. Before Schenider began sponsoring Jack Dykinga (about 3-4 years ago?)

and supplying lenses to him, Dykinga used all Nikon lenses and in my only conversation

with him rsaid he really liked the color quality and " 3 dimension feel' of images" made

with them. Schneider began sponsoring him about 3-4 years ago.

 

So I don't really think you can go wrong in any technical sense with either, and if you

prefer one or the other it will be a matter of personal taste.

[jim_simmons]

Welcome back Ellis. Hope you're doing well.

Jim

[syd]

G'day Ellis.

 

Thanks for chipping in, mate. Your response was certainly what I am looking for. Would you be able to flesh out a few more fine details for me?

 

----"And yes I've used both but own the Caltar. The color rendition is slightly different between the two brands."-----

 

Could you qualify the above for me? Any particular reason you own the Caltar over the Nikkor or was this simply a matter of already having one and not needing the other? Could you describe the colour rendition of the two in comparison as this is of interest to me. And lastly is there a discernable difference in weight between these two? I will be backpacking and hiking so weight is of some small importance.

 

-----"said he really liked the color quality and " 3 dimension feel' of images" made with them. Schneider began sponsoring him about 3-4 years ago."---------

 

Thats quite intruiging. Joe Cornish uses the Nikkor 90 and has produced stunning Landscapes with this lens, I have not had the opportunity to see the results with a Caltar II N 90mm.

 

Best, S.

[brian_ellis3]

Image quality should be fine with either one. The standard wisdom, with which I agree, is that there's unlikely to be any signficant difference in image quality as between lenses of the same design and focal length from any of the "big four" manufacturers. So buy based on other things such as price, condition (if used), image circle, size, weight, type of shutter, etc.

[syd]

Thanks Ellis.

 

I am hoping someone could address the question of weight between these two lenses?

 

Another issue which has me a bit perplexed is the contradictory information regarding focal length equivalents. I am wanting a 24mm angle of view from 35mm format in LF. Some places state that this is equivalent to 90mm in LF and other places assert that it is 75mm.

 

Which is it?

 

Another anomoly I noticed among the big brands was that the 75mm lenses are a little less expensive than the 90mm lenses, any reasons for this?

[michael_briggs2]

The only factor that matters for calculating the angle of the scence viewed by a lens is the ratio between the focal length and the linear dimension on the film. (For close objects one should use the image distance rather than the focal length.) For example, to calculate from trignometry the horizontal angle viewed, you just need to know the ratio of the focal length and the horizontal dimesion of the film.

 

This means that equivalent focal lengths scale with the format size. So if you like a 24 mm lens in 35 mm photography, you can find the equivalent focal length by multiplying by the increased size of the otehr format. The problem is that the other formats typically don't have the same aspect ratio as 35 mm film. So do you use the long dimension, the short dimension, or the diagonal? Many people use the diagonal as a compromise between the dimenions of the two sides, but what is best depends on the each photographer. If you always make landscape orientation photos, the long dimension might be more pertinant.

 

Using the long dimemsion, the factor to go from 35 mm to 4x5 is about 3.3, calculated as 120 mm / 36 mm. This converts a 24 mm lens into a 79 mm lens for 4x5. Using the diagonal, the conversion factor is about 3.5, calculated as 150 mm / 43 mm. With this criteria, the equivalent of a 24 mm lens for 4x5 is 84 mm.

[syd]

Thanks Michael!

 

So it's about right that 90mm is more or less closer to 28mm in 35 format afterall; thats cleared things up quite a bit. It appears also that 75mm in LF might well be just a tad shorter than 24mm/35 format which I am generally loathed to go beyond. It appears than that a compromise with the 90mm will be preferable.

[michael_briggs2]

The paper pamphlet for the Nikon LF lenses gives the weight of the Nikkor-SW 90 mm f4.5 lens as 600 g. The current Caltar is actually a Rodenstock Grandagon-N. Neither Calumet nor Rodenstock seem to provide information about the weight -- it probably is pretty close to the Nikkor.

 

Major weight reduction will only come from yielding on the maximum aperture -- this would be my suggestion for backpacking, otherwise you might find yourself leaving it home, or wishing you had. I have used the 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW, which has plenty of coverage and weighs only 360 g. I haven't had trouble focusing it outdoors. Using a truly opaque darkcloth will help with use of slower lenses by cutting out extraneous light that washes out the image.

 

If f8 seems too slow, there is the f6.8 Grandagon-N / Caltar.

 

I haven't been disappointed with any lens from the big four (Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider) that I have used.

[syd]

Again Michael, very helpful thankyou. I am fond of using the faster lenses for the sake of being able to work fast in failing light. If it buys me extra seconds to get a great shot in the circumstances I usually shoot, then it will be worth it for me. If I was shooting primarily indoors or arhitecture I might be happier with a slower lens but I'm happy to sacrifice a little weight for the sake of faster set ups and shooting.

[don_wilkes]

Simon: I found a spec sheet for the 90 f/4.5 Grandagon at B&H Photo. They list it as 0.7 kg. See:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=44561&is=USA&si=spec#goto_itemInfo

 

Another site agrees, stating it as 700g:

 

http://www.prograf.ru/rodenstock/largeformat_en.html#table1

[syd]

Thanks Don!

 

I have also been looking at the Nikkor f4.5 SW 90mm but I would like to know how much coverage I would get for 4x5 with this lens? I think the specs say 200mm at f16... am I right in assuming that this lens would only give me 4x5 coverage at f16 with no movement at all whatsoever?

[syd]

My mistake... thats supposed to be 75mm SW Nikkor!

[syd]

Now being new to LF, again you might want to forgive my ignorance. I seem to be getting Image circle and coverage mixed up. These are the specs for the 75mm Nikkor f4.5.

 

Covering Power (f/4.5) 80 degrees -

Covering Power (f/16) 106 degrees -

Image Circle (f/4.5) 126m -

Image Circle (f/16) 200mm -

 

I think I might have meant the Covering power to determine coverage and movement for 4x5, yes?

[michael_briggs2]

Simon, whoever made that table is using the term "Covering Power" for the angle of coverage. This term isn't that standard, but the intended meaning is clear because the value is in degrees. Each lens projects a cone of light that delivers a quality image. The full angle of the cone is the "angle of coverage". The intersection of the cone with the image plane (film plane) creates a circle of quality image -- the diameter of that circle is the diameter of coverage. In the table you have quoted, the diameter of the circle of coverage is described as "Image Circle".

 

Typically lenses of the same type will the same, or close to the same, values for the angle of coverage. For example, independent of focal length, most f4.5 Nikkor-SWs will have the same angle of coverage, while most Nikkor-Ws will have the same angle of coverage, but different from the Nikkor-SWs. (Sometimes there is a small dependence on focal length). The longer focal length lenses will have larger diameters of coverage because as you move the film plane farther from the lens, the base of the cone will become larger.

 

As a photographer, the number that is most directly relevant is the diameter of the circle of coverage. If diameter of coverage is larger than the diagonal of the format (about 150 mm for 4x5), then the lens covers the format; if not, the lens doesn't cover. The more that the diameter of the circle of coverage exceeds the format diagonal, the larger the movements the lens will support.

[wyverndude]

Something that may or might not be worth considering, is that the resale value of the Nikkor can be expected to be significantly higher than the Caltar.

<P>

I'm surprised that you say that they are both available at approximately the same price. The Caltar has a (from what I hear, much undeserved) reputation as a "economy" model, and this usually really pulls down the price.

<P>When I've seen Caltar lenses mentioned, it's usually someone saying that they are "sleeper" lenses -much better than reputation grants them.

<P>I have a Caltar, but haven't had much of a chance to use it yet so I can't comment on quality -but I bought it based on positive reviews.

[syd]

Thanks again Michael that has explained a few things, greatly apreciated!

 

Bryce.

 

Well you are right about buying the lens that offers the better re-sale value of the Nikkor but it may well be that the Caltars are coming up in the world in terms of apreciable value. At the end of the day I rarely buy anything with a view to re-sale as I usually buy things as keepers but you make an excellent point.

 

Something the guys at Graflex.org pointed out is the square format difference with LF and how that makes the wide angles look different compositionally to the other formats. Which of the two lenses in peoples opinions would look closer to the 24mm view in 35mm for Large Format? 90mm or 75mm?