wide angle lenses

[putri]

i want to buy a wide angle lens for my 8x10 view camera to shoot

landscapes. which new lens whould i get?rodenstock or schnieder

155mm?

[martin_reekie]

You could go wider with the Nikkor 120mm?<div></div>

[ralph_barker]

If you like modern lens designs, the Schneider 110mm Super Symmar just covers 8x10 with no movements, and the 155mm Super Symmar covers with a fair amount of room for movements. There are also a number of older, wide-field designs that cover 8x10, as well.

[martin_reekie]

Ralph, correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL has an image circle at f22 of 288mm, not enough for 8x10 (312.5mm)? It'll cover 5x7".

I think the widest 8x10 lens is the Nikon Nikkor 120mm f8, it'll just cover 312mm at f22.

[david l.]

Russel, Get a Schneider 150 SSXL. It will cover 8x10 with room to spare. If you're shooting color, you'll also need a center filter.

[neil_poulsen1]

155mm seems awfully wide to me, akin to a 75mm on 4x5.

 

Other than what you listed, here are some of the most common coated lenses:

 

>> 250 Wide Field Ektar. 420 image circle.

 

>> 250 Fujinon f6.7. (Not f6.3.) 389 image circle.

 

>> 210 Angulon. About 380 image circle.

 

>> 165 Super Angulon.

 

>> 210 Super Angulon. 450 plus image circle. (Probably 500mm.)

 

>> 210 Schneider XL. (Very expensive, $2600.) 500 image circle.

[cxc]

I second Ralph's vote for the Super Symmar 110. I guarantee that it covers 8x10, despite Schneider's conservative specs to the contrary. With some tilt/swing.

 

It is *very* wide.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Get a 47XL - 120 degrees and no problems losing the corners with a 166mm diameter image!

[tim_atherton2]

"Get a 47XL - 120 degrees and no problems losing the corners with a 166mm

diameter image!"

 

something make me think you'll have dark corners (maybe a compelte circle...) on 8x10 :-)

[ralph_barker]

The coverage of the 110mm Super Symmar has been discussed here a few times, and there are a few example images posted in the archives that show it (just) covers 8x10 when stopped down. To me, however, the look is similar to a 21mm lens, or even shorter, on 35mm. The 155 feels similar to a 24mm lens on 35mm film - still pretty wide. I thought about the 210mm Super Symmar, but it's such a monster - size-, weight- and price-wise - that I decided against it. The 165mm Super Angulon has a similar feel as the 155mm SS, but is also quite large on both sides of the lens board. Good for studio, but a potential problem in the field. In the final analysis, I think the choice boils down to personal tastes in the image, balanced against price and physical characteristics.

[tim_atherton2]

All the modern lenses that have come up are nice, but generally very big and heavy - which is fine for some people in the field, not for others (BWT has anyone mentioned the Grandagon 155 (150?)?

 

If you want smaller and more compact (and usually cheaper) you end up usually looking at older lenses (many of which are jsut fine for colour, as well as B&W) - 159mm Wollensak, 165mm Dagor, 210 Kowa/Kyvitar or 210 and 240 G-Claron. Most have plenty of coverage, the 210 claron has a bit extra.

 

Mind you, if I saw a 150 or 120 Nikkor for a good price... :-)

[geoffrey_james]

Someone has made the point that these are large pieces of glass. I don't

know what camera you use, but if it's not a Phillips or a Canham, you already

have a ball and chain. How far from the car do you want to go ? If you don't

want to use the Grandagon, where do you put it when you put the other lens

on ? Are you shooting BW or Colour ? I use a 165 Dagor a lot -- it's fine and

very compact and less money. Between the two lenses you proposed, I prefer

the Grandagon, but I only use it for interiors, for which it is brilliant. The

answer is that the answer depends on you refining the question !

[carl_weese]

The 165mm Super Angulon gives wonderful results, and while

big and heavy, it certainly is portable. My standard 8x10 outfit

consists of the SA, a 240mm Apo Sironar S, and a 14"

Commercial Ektar, 8x10 Deardorff camera, and three filmholders

which all fits easily in an f.64 packpack, without the side pockets.

The pack isn't a feather, but there's no problem walking miles

with it. For multi-day hiking expeditions where you need food and

camping supplies, the SA could be counterproductive.

[tim_atherton2]

> what camera you use, but if it's not a Phillips or a Canham, you already

> have

> a ball and chain.

 

Or a Gandolfi :-)

[tim_atherton2]

"...4"

Commercial Ektar, 8x10 Deardorff camera, and three

filmholders

which all fits easily in an f.64 packpack, without the side

pockets...."

 

I wonder where I'd put my other 17 holders...?

[michael_briggs2]

<P>

Since Russel mentions 155 mm for his 8x10 camera, I will assume that he is interested in lenses with about this focal length. Based upon their technical parameters, such lenses fall into about three groups. Going from newest to oldest, which isn't necessarily the same as best to worst, the groups are:

</P>

 

<P>

Group I contains one member, the Schneider 150 mm f5.6 Super-Symmar XL.

</P>

 

<P>

Group II contains the other modern wide-angle designs, the

150 mm f8 Nikkor-SW, the Rodenstock 155 mm f6.8 Grandagon-N, and the

Schneider 165 mm f8 Super-Angulon. The Schneider was discontinued a few years ago.

</P>

 

<P>

Group III contains older wide-angle designs, such as the Schneider 165 mm Angulon, Dagors, Wollensak, etc.

</P>

 

<P>

All the lenses from Groups I and II will deliver sharp images. Group III isn't up to the same standard, but many find these lenses fully acceptable, particularly for contact prints. In any case, since Russel says that he wants a new lens, they are ruled out.

</P>

 

<P>

The advantage of the SS-XL (Group I) over the Group II lenses is that the new aspherical element technology leads to a lens that is smaller, lighter and faster. But not all technical parameters favor the SS-XL -- LF lenses fall into two categories with respect to their light falloff off-axis. The SS-XL has a cosine to the fourth power illumination behavior, while the Group II lenses use the tilting pupils trick to have a more even illumination, going about as cosine to the third power.

</P>

 

<P>

You have to decide which parameters are more important to you. Size, weight and fast aperture for focusing, or more even illumination. One is more likely to need a center filter for the SS-XL, though many photographers find they don't need one. It depends on the photographer's taste, and perhaps their film, e.g., narrow exposure lattitude transparency films are more likely to need a center filter than color or black-and-white negative films. Of course, another factor is cost.

</P>

 

<P>

There are some previous discussions of these issues in this forum, e.g.,

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0052eN">150mm for 8 x 10</A>,

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0038Xo">Schneider 150XL vs. Nikkor 150 SW (for 4x5 + 8x10)</A>,

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003DPP">Center Filter Requirements</A> and

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004TYx">110 XL on 8x10 format</A>.

</P>

 

<P>

It seems a lot of people are interested in what is the widest lens that will cover 8x10. That too have been previously discussed in the forum, with the typical answers being the 120 mm Nikkor-SW or the 110 mm Super-Symmar XL.

</P>

 

<P>

Longer than about 200 mm, and the number of choices expands.

</P>