widest medium format lens ever

[esmuz_.]

<p>Hi, I was wondering about what´s the widest medium format lens ever made.<br>

<br /> I know about the 30mm ones from kiev, the zodiac/arsat and also the distagon from carl zeiss, but is there anything even shorter?<br>

When I was in Moscow I am pretty sure I saw a 20mm lens for kiev88 cameras, it was in the polytechnic museum, but I am not sure at all. I was quite hurry when I visited it.<br>

Is that possible?<br /> Thank you!</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>That's a tough one to answer. First of all, medium format could be 6x4.5 or 6x9. It could also be digital or film. I know that Schneider has a 24mm Apo Digitar that has some MF coverage as I recall: http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1325&IID=1879</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>There is an f/3.5 24 mm Zeiss F Distagon fisheye, fits Hasselblad V System cameras, made as a special order item for industry.<br />It is in a CF barrel, but without shutter, and with only three aperture settings, f/3.5, f/4 and f/5.6. So focal pane shutter bodies are needed.<br />Some of the couple of tens made are said to have a functioning Prontor shutter.<br>

But they still can't be used for colour photography, because the glass is tinted.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Wow, interesting question.<br>

Here's a short list from a quick look through Kadlubek's Objectiv Katalog<br>

<br /> Shortest lens for<br /> Pentax 645 lens - Pentax 645 35mm f/3.5<br /> Pentax 67 lens - Pentax 67 35mm f/4.5<br /> Pentacon 6 - Jena MC 30mm f/4<br /> Hasselblad - Zeiss Distagon CF and F Distagon 30mm f/3.5<br /> Bronica 4,5x6 - Zenzanon Fisheye 30mm f/3,5<br /> Bronica 6x6 - Zenzanon Fisheye 35mm f/3.5<br /> Bronica 6x7 - Zenzanon PG 50mm f/4.5<br /> Kiev 6x6 - Arsat 30mm f/3.5<br /> Kiev 6x6 - Mir 45mm f/3.5</p>

<p>I can't find anything that I can identify as a medium-format lens less than 30mm.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<blockquote>

<p>"I can't find anything that I can identify as a medium-format lens less than 30mm."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well...<br />"There is an f/3.5 24 mm Zeiss F Distagon fisheye, fits Hasselblad V System [etc.]"<br />;-)</p>

<p>There is an f/4 28 mm lens for the Hasselblad H-series too, but to be fair, it only covers the smaller sensor format. Not full frame MF.</p>

<p>B.t.w., Esmuz, the 20 mm lens for Kiev is a 35 mm format lens.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>A picture of the 24 mm fisheye is first in the Fish List, <a href="http://panopticus.altervista.org/fishlist/fishlist-mf.htm">on this page</a>.<br>

The Fish List also lists a Kowa 19 mm fisheye (but though made for the Kowa 66, it will not cover the full format) and a Mamiya 24 mm fisheye for the 645-series.</p>

 

[xato]

<p><a href="http://www.mamiya.com/mamiya-645zdb-lenses-sekor-af-28mm-f4.5-d.html">http://www.mamiya.com/mamiya-645zdb-lenses-sekor-af-28mm-f4.5-d.html</a><br>

I've never seen shots of it used on the web though.</p>

[graham_mitchell]

<p>There is a Rodenstock HR Digaron-S 23mm f5.6 which is a rectilinear lens - the widest medium format rectilinear lens I know of.</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>Most fisheye lenses go to 180 degrees. it's kind of pointless to count them in; the boring answers is "180 degrees, all systems with a fisheye". The only lenses i know of doing more are a couple of very special lenses for the Nikon 35mm system that covered 220 degrees (they're huge and apparently meant for documenting cloud patterns).</p>

<p>For non-fisheye, the answer seems to be that very few MF lenses go beyond 90 degrees of coverage (that's about 45mm for 6x7 format for instance). Anything beyond that is really rare, which may be surprising as wider rectilinear lenses than that are not uncommon for 35mm where you can find lenses covering around 110 degrees (14mm for 35mm cameras, or 10mm for APS). My take on the reason is that MF systems have mostly been used by professionals rather than hobbyists, and the wide-angle distortion inherent in ultrawide rectilinear lenses starts to become really obvious beyond that angle of coverage. To people for whom overall image quality is important, that distortion becomes unacceptable for most situations, which makes ultrawides a rare niche. For hobbyists, on the other hand, distortion and veracity matters less, and ultrawides are fun to play with so the market is much larger.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Q.G. don't be so touchy. I was speaking about the Kadlubek catalog listings only. I looked for your 24mm Distagon and couldn't find it. Kadlubek is not and doesn't claim to be exhaustive, and even when things are listed, they're not always where you would expect, so I just said I couldn't find anything that short (in the catalog).</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>The Schneider 24mm <em>does </em> cover 60mm. So that would put it in the MF range.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>In addition to the 35mm prime, Pentax 645 has the 33-55mm zoom, reputed to be excellent.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Ok, could a glassless pinhole qualify as a "lens", rectilinear to boot? There are zero image pinhole cameras for 6 by 6 available with f = 22 mm, I think ... and what will prevent us from making one with f = 18 mm or shorter if we like ... f = 0 mm is the limit; unreachable, though.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Guys, you're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on SLR lenses. Discounting the fisheyes, the really widest rectilinear MF lenses are used on cameras without a reflex mirror.</p>

<p>For example, the Rodenstock APO Grandagon 35/4.5 is normally used on 6x9cm. That's the equivalent of a 15mm lens on 35mm film. And that is still not exhausting its circle of coverage: it can be shifted by 12mm/16mm (horizontally/vertically) around the 6x9 frame. On a 6x12 back, it will take you down to 12.5mm focal-length-equivalent-on-35mm before it runs out of coverage.</p>

[esmuz_.]

<p>Thank you so much for the great answers guys. <br>

And yes , the 20mm lens I saw was the MIR-20 a 35mm wide lens.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>I have the 24mm mamiya fisheye, which is a great lens (it includes a set of 4 filters internally), I tried the Arsat 30mm but was not even close the to Mamiya lens in sharpness.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>The 30mm on the Xpan is very wide, considering that the Xpan film area is as wide as 6x7...and it is rectilinear. So what has a wider angle of view? 24mm on 6x6 or 30mm on 6x7? Probably 24mm, right?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Actually the 30 mm on 6x7 (100 degrees horizontally, vs 99 degrees horizontally for the 24 mm on 6x6).<br>

;-)</p>

<p>The 24 mm Zeiss fish eye for 6x6 is said to have a 300 degrees angle of view.<br>

Is that possible? If it is, hard to beat.</p>

 

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>So what has a wider angle of view? 24mm on 6x6 or 30mm on 6x7?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did we establish whether there actually is a rectilinear 24mm which fully covers 6x6 (diagonal 79.2mm)? That was not apparent from the posts above. The 24mm Digitar's circle is only given as 60mm; its illumination is down to ~12% at a radius of 30mm according to Schneider's graphs. And Q.G. said that the Zeiss 24mm lens for Hasselblad V is a fisheye. Ditto the Mamiya 24mm fisheye.</p>

<p>Anyway, <em>IF </em> such a rectilinear 24mm lens does exist, its angle on the 6x6 diagonal is 117.6 degrees and the equivalent 35mm-format lens would be 13.1 mm focal length. So the APO Grandagon 35mm still pips it on 6x12. The X-Pan 30mm has a diagonal angle of "only" 98.2 degrees and the equivalent 35mm-format lens is 18.7 mm focal length; that's a long way off being a contender for the widest. Even my Mamiya Press 50mm covers around 98 degrees on Polaroids (the full diagonal would be 100.3 degrees, but it runs out of steam just before that...see pic below), and I didn't feel the need to mention that earlier since there were better candidates emerging.</p>

<p>I am deliberately using diagonal coverage and ignoring aspect ratio differences because (a) that is how lens coverage is normally specified, (b) it's the only real comparison of different lenses' FOV capabilities. The X-Pan 30mm lens is a case in point. Treating only the horizontal angle, it sounds really impressive; but considering its real bounding box, it is really nothing <em>that </em> special.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p><em>"I am deliberately using diagonal coverage and ignoring aspect ratio differences because (a) that is how lens coverage is normally specified, (b) it's the only real comparison of different lenses' FOV capabilities. The X-Pan 30mm lens is a case in point. Treating only the horizontal angle, it sounds really impressive; but considering its real bounding box, it is really nothing that special."</em></p>

<p>I would not use the diagonal.<br />Just because different aspect ratios differ so much, and because we tend to fit things in our frames horizontally (or rather: along the long format side), the only real comparison is along the long format side.</p>

<p>Point in hand: the XPan's panoramic format is rather low. That reduces the ratio between the horizontal and diagonal angles of view drastically.<br />Yet when you count, say, the number of individual cars of a passing train it will fit in the frame, that doesn't matter at all.<br />So even though the stunted diagonal may make it seem rather narrow, it isn't. Any lens used on the XPan will be just as wide (will fit the same number of cars of that train in the frame) as a lens of the same focal length used on any other format with a much larger diagonal.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>because we tend to fit things in our frames horizontally (or rather: along the long format side), the only real comparison is along the long format side.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends a lot on the subject matter. Some of us do compose on the diagonal...case in point below.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yet when you count, say, the number of individual cars of a passing train it will fit in the frame, that doesn't matter at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or the number of individual stars of a passing Galactic spiral arm? Oh but it does matter. Then again, I am a bit unusual in what I shoot.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>You just had to fit that galaxy in diagonally because it wouldn't fit on the long side.<br>

You can't do that with many subjects without the picture ending up looking avant-garde or just strange (depending on the mood you are in).</p>

<p>Now, had you been better of with a more square format (larger diagonal), or the opposite, a more oblong format (longer long side)? Hmm...<br>

;-)</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>To me the problem is, when I find the widest available M/F lens manufactured it will be so costly, how do I pay for it without selling one of my organs, or selling my wife and children into slavery ?</p>

[steve_larese1]

<p>Beautiful, Ray, did you track the camera for that?</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>Beautiful, Ray, did you track the camera for that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Steve! Yes, I tracked it for 20 minutes at f5.6 on (expired) Konica Centuria 400. Clear, moonless skies are rare here, so I make the most of them by shooting 3 or 4 cameras simultaneously on my EQ6 mount.</p>

<p>Centuria was the last colour negative 120 film to have reasonable red sensitivity at 656 nm, where the astronomical nebulae emit their beautiful red colour. Normally I use Kodak E200 slide film though, because it produces cherry-red nebulae (and has excellent reciprocity).</p>

<p>If you look at most DSLR astrophotos, they have almost no sensitivity to the dominant red in nebulae - they only pick up their weaker blue and green emission. The more dedicated DSLR astrophotographers modify their cameras, replacing the stock anti-aliasing filter with one which passes more red (of course this voids the warranty).</p>