Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,858   Online: 883
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,290
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    The Goerz Hypergons I directed you to cover 135 degrees.
    i love that lens ... especially the fun-fun-spinning-fan .. talk about cool !

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    15
    I have another question whats the specialty of modern (super) wide angles and the old classic wides or legendary wides.
    (actually had apo lanthar and Sironar-S, modern Plasmats, in mind.)

    Mainly asking about new type vs old type.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Clemtography View Post
    I have another question whats the specialty of modern (super) wide angles and the old classic wides or legendary wides.
    (actually had apo lanthar and Sironar-S, modern Plasmats, in mind.)

    Mainly asking about new type vs old type.
    The Apo-Lanthar is most closely related to the Heliar, it is not a Plasmat or anywhere near one. Also, neither the Lanthar/Heliar nor the Plasmats are wide-angle lenses.

    The old wide angle lenses such as the Angulon (a "reverse" Dagor type) usually just covered their format, and needed to be stopped down for good sharpness over the entire frame. Newer lenses such as the Super Angulon allow for movements, and will work at a wider aperture.

  4. #24
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Croubie View Post
    Take a 4x5 frame, actual image size is 94x120mm (numbers I got from a bit of googling) and a 35mm frame size of 24x36 (may be optomistic for film, but it's the size of digital FF at least).
    The 4x5 has a ratio of 1.27:1 (near enough a 5:4 ratio), the 35mm has a 1.33:1 (6:4 or 3:2 ratio).

    So what do you want your output image ratio to be?


    A different way to look at 'equivalent FL' is to merely compare the FL to the frame dimension. Using the short dimension of the frame as the baseline, then 24mm FL on 135 format would be equivalent to 94mm FL on 4x5 format. After all, you fit the short dimension of the frame into the short dimension of any print size, so the print is the great format ratio equalizer!

    Comparing the 'normal', 50mm FL is 2.1x the short dimension of 135 format, and 200mm FL is about 2.1x the short dimension of the 4x5 format. Or, to put it differently, 150mm FL is 1.6x the short dimension of 4x5, so you really need 38mm FL on 135 to frame the same amount of vertical area.

    So in 'really wide angle' land, 75mm FL on 4x5 is like using 20mm on 135 format.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,398
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    The Apo-Lanthar is most closely related to the Heliar, it is not a Plasmat or anywhere near one. Also, neither the Lanthar/Heliar nor the Plasmats are wide-angle lenses.

    The old wide angle lenses such as the Angulon (a "reverse" Dagor type) usually just covered their format, and needed to be stopped down for good sharpness over the entire frame. Newer lenses such as the Super Angulon allow for movements, and will work at a wider aperture.
    E., we're partially in small format land. There Apo-Lanthar is a trade name, as is Heliar, and both names (neither 5/3 lenses) include wide angles.

    About the old types, agree about the need to stop ancient types down to get full coverage, but modern types also gain coverage on stopping down.

    Disagree strongly about the old types' limited coverage. Consider, if you will, f/18 Protars, Ross' f/16 versions, f/14 Perigraphes and f/8 and f/9 Wide Angle Dagors. I have a tiny 45/9 CZJ Goerz Dagor that covers 2x3. It isn't cataloged, I have no idea what its intended format is.

    Disagree too that some of the modern types have lots of coverage. My little 38/4.5 Biogon covers a hair more than its intended format; has to cover 80 mm, puts good image in an 84 mm circle (huge difference there, eh?) and the illumination vanishes at 86 mm.

    IMO -- not everyone agrees -- the significant differences are that modern w/a types in general are faster than the ancients, therefore easier to focus; that the ones that take advantage of Roosinov's tilting pupil trick have more even illumination than the ancients; and that the modern ones don't have to be stopped as far down as the ancients for good results. On this last point, for example, Rodenstock says that Apo Grandagons are best used between f/8 and f/11.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    E., we're partially in small format land. There Apo-Lanthar is a trade name, as is Heliar, and both names (neither 5/3 lenses) include wide angles.

    About the old types, agree about the need to stop ancient types down to get full coverage, but modern types also gain coverage on stopping down.

    Disagree strongly about the old types' limited coverage. Consider, if you will, f/18 Protars, Ross' f/16 versions, f/14 Perigraphes and f/8 and f/9 Wide Angle Dagors. I have a tiny 45/9 CZJ Goerz Dagor that covers 2x3. It isn't cataloged, I have no idea what its intended format is.

    Disagree too that some of the modern types have lots of coverage. My little 38/4.5 Biogon covers a hair more than its intended format; has to cover 80 mm, puts good image in an 84 mm circle (huge difference there, eh?) and the illumination vanishes at 86 mm.

    IMO -- not everyone agrees -- the significant differences are that modern w/a types in general are faster than the ancients, therefore easier to focus; that the ones that take advantage of Roosinov's tilting pupil trick have more even illumination than the ancients; and that the modern ones don't have to be stopped as far down as the ancients for good results. On this last point, for example, Rodenstock says that Apo Grandagons are best used between f/8 and f/11.

    Cheers,

    Dan
    True, but the OP is asking about lenses for 4x5. And for me, an Apo Lanthar is and will forever be a large format lens, regardless of the dictates of current "branding" practices.

    As for limited coverage, as a general thing an 80 year old WA for say 8x10, such as the Wollensak series III, doesn't allow for movements of any degree. I did say "usually" as a qualifier when I used the Angulon (which in the 90mm flavor doesn't give much if any wiggle room on 4x5) as an example.

    Most modern WA lenses do give better coverage than their vintage counterparts of the same focal length.
    I didn't want to go into any real detail in an answer until the OP is up to speed on the very basics.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    True, but the OP is asking about lenses for 4x5. And for me, an Apo Lanthar is and will forever be a large format lens, regardless of the dictates of current "branding" practices.

    As for limited coverage, as a general thing an 80 year old WA for say 8x10, such as the Wollensak series III, doesn't allow for movements of any degree. I did say "usually" as a qualifier when I used the Angulon (which in the 90mm flavor doesn't give much if any wiggle room on 4x5) as an example.

    Most modern WA lenses do give better coverage than their vintage counterparts of the same focal length.
    I didn't want to go into any real detail in an answer until the OP is up to speed on the very basics.
    Im up to speed so far been reading up intensely so far.
    I would like to hear more from you

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    I didn't want to go into any real detail in an answer until the OP is up to speed on the very basics.
    I am not the OP, but would like to know more details

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,398
    Clem, we've been wrangling, to some extent, about points that really aren't relevant to you.

    90 mm lenses are often used on 4x5. So are shorter ones. You probably won't know which short focal length(s) is(are) best for you until you try several.

    These days it is hard to lose a lot of money on used LF lenses, although at the moment prices of older 90s with limited coverage (Angulons, Wolly Optars/Raptars) may be on the high side because of a small craze for a new hand-holdable 4x5 camera that's designed around them. If I were you, depending on budget, I'd get a 90/8 Super Angulon and use it. I have an early one in #00 shutter; it is in terrible condition, I use it as a paperweight. Hold out for a newer one in #0 shutter. Same optics, shutter that's much easier to live with.

    There are other similar lenses from Fuji, Nikon, and Rodenstock. I just took a look at keh.com, who have two 90/8 Fujinons at quite reasonable prices for that sort of thing. I buy most of my gear through eBay but keh is safer to deal with than sellers on eBay.

    How you like it will guide you to what you'll like best. I'm sorry, but imagination and trying to reason from what you like on smaller formats aren't as good guides as one would think. You really have to get a lens, nearly any lens, and try it out. If it doesn't suit, sell it.

    The ancient lenses I've mentioned in this discussion are either hard to use (90/14 Perigraphe, dim and in barrel, can be stuffed in the front on a Ilex or Alphax #3 but ...) or cult items (90/18 Protar, dimmer, usually in barrel) and horribly expensive. They're good, but aren't for everyone.

    Good luck, have fun, and remember that everything you do will be wrong,

    Dan

    E., I brought up f/14 Perigraphes and f/18 Protars because they have enormous coverage. Pre-WWI designs, too. There's more junk out there than the common crap we're all familiar with.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Clem, we've been wrangling, to some extent, about points that really aren't relevant to you.

    90 mm lenses are often used on 4x5. So are shorter ones. You probably won't know which short focal length(s) is(are) best for you until you try several.

    These days it is hard to lose a lot of money on used LF lenses, although at the moment prices of older 90s with limited coverage (Angulons, Wolly Optars/Raptars) may be on the high side because of a small craze for a new hand-holdable 4x5 camera that's designed around them. If I were you, depending on budget, I'd get a 90/8 Super Angulon and use it. I have an early one in #00 shutter; it is in terrible condition, I use it as a paperweight. Hold out for a newer one in #0 shutter. Same optics, shutter that's much easier to live with.

    There are other similar lenses from Fuji, Nikon, and Rodenstock. I just took a look at keh.com, who have two 90/8 Fujinons at quite reasonable prices for that sort of thing. I buy most of my gear through eBay but keh is safer to deal with than sellers on eBay.

    How you like it will guide you to what you'll like best. I'm sorry, but imagination and trying to reason from what you like on smaller formats aren't as good guides as one would think. You really have to get a lens, nearly any lens, and try it out. If it doesn't suit, sell it.

    The ancient lenses I've mentioned in this discussion are either hard to use (90/14 Perigraphe, dim and in barrel, can be stuffed in the front on a Ilex or Alphax #3 but ...) or cult items (90/18 Protar, dimmer, usually in barrel) and horribly expensive. They're good, but aren't for everyone.

    Good luck, have fun, and remember that everything you do will be wrong,

    Dan

    E., I brought up f/14 Perigraphes and f/18 Protars because they have enormous coverage. Pre-WWI designs, too. There's more junk out there than the common crap we're all familiar with.
    Hey Dan thanks for bringing the post back on topic. It is quite interesting to hear all of your opinions this post has help me more than enough. I hope more people can chip in so that new starters can look at this post.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin