Wide lenses for 4X5

[henry_a]

I'm thinking of buying wider lenses for my 4X5.

 

<p>

 

I currently have a 110 that I'm very happy with.

My original plan was to buy both a 65 and an 80mm to cover the real wide end.

 

<p>

 

I'm renting a 65 Nikkor now for a job and the light fall off without a

center filter is a bit more than I'd like so I wonder if I'd be better

served with a 75 and a 90 pair. I know the 75 and 90 have more coverage and I'm guessing less fall off as well. I think the angle of view of the 75 may be wide enough for me that I would trade for less fall off.

 

<p>

 

Will the 75 have less fall off than the 65?

Is it enough to matter?

 

<p>

 

Do any of you who use 65mm, 75mm and 90 mm on 4X5 have specific comments on those lengths and the use of center filters?

 

<p>

 

Any favorite lenses I should look at or dogs to avoid?

 

<p>

 

I'll use them mostly for interior/exterior architecture in color and B&W. For color I'll probably use color neg only - no more E6 than I have to!

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance.

[psychophoto]

You probably don't need the ridiculous amount of coverage, but

I've grown very fond of my 90mm Super Angulon XL. A wonderful

lens for architecture, but probably overkill for most other

applications.

[merg_ross]

As an architectural photographer I found a 90mm to be the ideal focal

length. My clients, architects, thought that any shorter focal length

produced unpleasant distortion. The 90mm Super Angulon worked well

without a center filter. I would strongly advise an f:5.6 over an f:8

for ease of composition and focus.

[michael_briggs2]

My opinion is that 90 mm is quite close in focal length to the 110 mm

that you already have. For your next lens I suggest a shorter focal

length. My wide lenses are 72 mm and 110 mm. The extreme coverage

of the 72 mm Super Angulon XL is great for architecture. I generally

use a center filter with the 72 mm.

[thomas_vaehrmann]

If you look at the data sheets you will see that you will always have

a fall off towards the edges because the lens design is the same for

65, 75 or 90 mm. The only thing that changes is the size of the image

circle. If you're going to shift a 90mm you will need a centre filter

to compensate the fall off as you will always need with 65mm because

there is no room for movements. You wouldn't need a center filter on

90mm if you stay in the center and avoid shifting. So check what you

need: more angle of view or more image circle or both.

[bob_salomon2]

"You wouldn't need a center filter on 90mm if you stay in the

center and avoid shifting."

 

<p>

 

Not necessarily. Doing base tilt or swings can also require a

center filter.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Will the 75 have less fall off than the 65? Is it enough to

matter?<P> Depends on the design but probably the fall off

won't be that much less. of course it won't cover the same

degree of view either.<P>Do any of you who use 65mm, 75mm

and 90 mm on 4X5 have specific comments on those lengths

and the use of center filters? <I use the 65mm and the 90mm

regularly and depending on what I am photographing the filter is

sometimes necessary.<P>Any favorite lenses I should look at or

dogs to avoid? <P>I like Nikkors and Rodenstock. not fond of

Schneider Super Angulons.<P>I have no idea why you want to

avoid E6. Could you elaborate?

[upscan]

If you do landscapes, David Muench's book "Plateau Light" is a mine

of information on the subject you raise. This book indicates the

lenses used. A great many of the pictures are taken with the 75mm

and a surprising many with the 47mm. Remember, he uses a Linhof

Technika 45.

[neal_shields]

There are 75mm Biogons out there that are government surplus (no

shutter). I have seen some great deals on Ebay, even if you have to

pay to get them put in a shutter. Most people say that they don't

need a center filter. I put one on my 8X10 and didn't see much fall

off. The image circle is 175 but I think that it is quoted a f4.

Some of the other mfgs quote at smaller F stops. You need a strong

back though, they weigh about 4#! They can also be a trick to get

mounted in a normal bellows as the rear element is so large that when

you tilt the lens to get the board in the bottom catches on a Linhof,

the top of the rear element pushes on the bellows.

[fred_de_van]

There is wide and then there is WIDE! I use a 65mm 5.6 Super Angulon,

a 53mm 4.5 Ziess Biogon, and on occasion a 47mm 5.6 Super Angulon, on

my Granview and Cambo 4x5s. The Biogon on the Granview is stunning and

much easier to use than when I had it on a Technica V. I have two

Granview cameras and can show that the 53mm Biogon has less fall off

than the 65mm Schnieder glass. Being a subjective art far more than a

math excersize, the end photographs from any extream wide angle are

usually enhanced by the fall off anyway, and the combination makes the

image work, visually. It closely approximates what the eye does

naturally. The effect of fall off from extreame wide angle lenses is

minimized once you put a 6x12 back on your 4x5. Vast expanses of sky

or any other monotone is why you are even aware of it. With a busy

subject matter it looks quite normal, cause that is how the eye sees

the scene. Our brain is the compensating device. It scans.

[henry_a]

I have no idea why you want to avoid E6. Could you elaborate?

 

<p>

 

-- Ellis Vener Photography

 

<p>

 

Because color negative films can capture a wider range than

transparency films, balance mixed light sources well, and I do C41

myself. For me right now E6 is simply more trouble. I'd LOVE to see

some 400-800 speed color negative sheet film of normal contrast and

saturation (not Portra which is fine for people but a bit pastel for

other uses)

 

<p>

 

Thanks for all the good advice.