The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Which 90mm f/4.5 or f/5.6?

pellicle

New member
Hi

Most likely the case. I used to have the 3200 too, but even my 4990 will exhibit some CA's if I scan large enough. Presumably... hopefully the newer V700/V750's don't have this problem.

Rob
there are problems with registration of the R G and B sections of scans from the Epson. I have done a little exploring of this and put up a page to explain what I found here. A friend of mine in Japan has confirmed that he has seen similar issues with his V700, although reduced. I see them also on my 4990 (I have 3 Epsons 3200, 4870 and 4990;as a result of upgrading and never selling the older ones).

sometimes the "RGB walking" can be a result of scanner and sometimes is caused by lens CA ... a quick way to decide this is to use a speck of dust as a reference point. I have seen quite some clean up of scans using PT Lens to manually correct the CA on (say) my Bessa I folders images. They work rather better then.
 
S

SCHWARZZEIT

Guest
Gravestones :) And later, perhaps some environmental portraits. I'll have to see. For portraits the corner performance is not likely a hindrance anyway.

My initial aim was more for being able to focus wide open though. I see that you also live in Berlin, so you know how dark it gets at the moment in the late afternoon, and I need to be able to focus on dark objects in the shade on an overcast day in the late afternoon in the winter...
I see your point that focusing in the dark could be an issue. What adds to the problem is that these wide angle lenses show a severe light falloff towards the corners. If you use a lens with a large image circle and your camera allows enough movements you may be able shift the brighter center of the image circle closer to the spot you'd like to focus on.
I have been carefully avoiding Jack's advice to get an f/8 lens, since he has loads more light than me most of the time (although I am sure he has tried focusing in darker situations). Is the XL sharp enough to focus on something in a corner, wide open?
I haven't tried that myself. In fact I don't own the 90mm XL lens I used for the test. It probably depends on how much light you have in that corner. When it's bright you can to stop down to f/8 to increase the corner contrast for focusing. But if it's too dim you'll welcome the extra stop to see anything at all. But I wouldn't worry too much about it because with 4x5" you're not even near the edge of the image circle. If you really want to focus on something in a far corner of your frame your problem will be getting the loupe there, unless you'd like to recompose after focusing.
What about the MC or the Rodenstock?
The XL is the latest design of these lenses. It's probably as good as it gets. I haven't used the other 90s. If you look at the MTF of the Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 it's also close to what is optically possible in the f/11-f/22 range. If focusing in dim light is critical for your work then I'd go for the f/4.5.
What about focus shift, as mentioned by Jack? I tend to think that it would be easier to focus wide open at f/5,6 and then make a correction at the shooting aperture than focusing directly at the shooting aperture, but I really don't know, having only ever used a Crown Graphic with some old Kodak lens, and not all that much at that.

If I need to stop down to f/8 to focus, I may as well get an f/8 lens, although I would really much prefer something faster.
I haven't experienced focus shift to be a problem in LF at all. At least I don't have any images where I can pinpoint the technical failure on some small amount of focus shift. I think there are other parameters like film flatness in the holders or the rigidity of the camera when you insert a holder to be kept in check. I don't think focus shift is a problem when you actually shoot at f/16 or f/22 with the DOF gained.
The XL is really huge, and I am not even sure that the rear element will fit through the opening of the Chamonix 4x5 front standard, so I am thinking more about the Rodenstock at the moment, and perhaps the older MC lens.
If your Chamonix uses Linhof Technika boards then the XL should fit as the Technikardan I had for my tests used the same boards. But I remember reading about these issues with an older Schneider 90mm f/5,6 lens rear element which they redesigned to work with those Technika boards.

-Dominique
 

carstenw

Active member
Thanks for all that useful information, Dominique. I will keep my eyes open for a good deal on one of these newer lenses.
 

Chris C

Member
1) Schneider 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon MC

2) Schneider 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon XL

3) Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N
Carsten - I'm late to this thread, but for my eyes, and UK [read German] light, there's no way I would want an f8 lens. Eye strain from trying to see into a dark on-screen image is unpleasant. My slowest lenses were f5.6, and up to finding a good fresnel screen for my camera, come Autumn I would feel like throwing the camera from the nearest bridge because of difficulties focusing and framing. Across two systems I have three Apo Grandagons and that extra light for setting the image up can be fairly essential. Whilst others are more qualified to give comparison feedback on the three lenses you are considering, I'd choose the Rodenstock f4.5 because it would make the camera more functional for me.

On 5x4 a 90 mm is still wide, and the 'wides' are harder on the eyes than 'mediums'; grab all the wide-open light you can for 'our' light. Good luck.

.............. Chris

EDIT - Oops. I should have read your post more carefully. You are concerned with corner sharpness at wide open. I hope that it will be less of a concern for you in practice, than the ability to see into the corners with sufficient image brightness. It really isn't like the Leica tradition of needing to trust a lens' performance wide open because you will be stopping down your LF lenses. Your focusing won't likely ever be in the corners, you will get to trust the lenses when stopped down, and more likely than not your focusing will be done near the central, brightest part of your screen. 'Wide-open corner sharpness' was never a priority concern for me, but corner darkness was.
 
Last edited:

pellicle

New member
Chris

...
there's no way I would want an f8 lens. Eye strain from trying to see into a dark on-screen image is unpleasant. My slowest lenses were f5.6, and up to finding a good fresnel screen for my camera, come Autumn I would feel like throwing the camera from the nearest bridge because of difficulties focusing and framing.
at the risk of telling anyone how to suck eggs, I find that I rarely have such critical issues framing a wide lens, even without looking at the ground glass. I guess that you know that you can see what's in by looking at the ground glass (without the lens cloth or even the lens open) and lining up whats in and whats not by looking at the line through the lens and to the edge of the glass (same goes for top to bottom as well as side to side). That said even under the ground glass I find that keeping further back (better for my eyes anyway as I'm getting older) and moving my head around as if I was trying to look through straight through the glass and the lens at the subject that its all lots brighter. I think this is down to the incident angle of the light on the ground glass.

Actually my 180mm is much brighter on the glass even stopped down to f11 than my 90 is at 8, which I think reflects the above issue

my massey furgeson shot above was done with a Fujinon 90mm in a dim shed on a 5 second exposure at f8
 

carstenw

Active member
I guess I cannot know all factors in advance, and have to make the best educated decision I can and just try it. The Chamonix 45N-1/2 does come with a Fresnel, so maybe the problem is mitigated by this. I wish I knew a Chamonix user with one of these lenses, working under similar conditions.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I wish I knew a Chamonix user with one of these lenses, working under similar conditions.
Carsten,

You have had several of us who have used all ranges of lenses on cameras with fresnels, and in my case used them on a Chamonix, telling you there is not a huge difference in f5.6 and f8 on the GG in a practical field situation. Bottom line is all short focals have dark corners and you do have to move your head around to see into them.

Here is a test for you to try at home with what you already own. Put the 80 on your Contax, set it to f5.6. Now hit the stop-down lever and look through the viewfinder. Without removing your eye, stop the lens down to f8. Voilla, that is the extent of the difference you'll have with a 90 on the Chamonix's GG...

If you shot dark interiors for a living every day, then yes, maybe the extra stop is worth the extra weight.

Seriously, what I think you really want for your gravestone project is an older Schneider Xenar, like the 135 f3.8 or maybe 105 f3.5 or the rarer f2.8 "Xenotar" if you can find one. Lots of 150 f4's around too.

If I were filling out a 4x5 kit again today, I would specifically go for a few Xenar's just because they render so beautifully and can be used wide open -- I'd most likely get one each of the faster 135 and 210's. They are not as clinically sharp as the plasmats, but that's not why I'd use LF if I went back to it -- I have digital for that.

PS: Just did a quick ebay search -- note that this is a biga$$ lens in a #3 shutter, but then it is an f2.8 150! http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-SCHNEIDER-...ra_Lenses?hash=item519026845f#ht_15032wt_1280

Here's a 135: http://cgi.ebay.com/XENAR-1-3-8-135...era_Lenses?hash=item19b9af9b20#ht_2941wt_1167

Here's the f4.5 150, LOTS smaller: http://cgi.ebay.com/Linbhof-Technik...LM_CAMERAS?hash=item3a574713ad#ht_2303wt_1167

BTW, if you hunt for them, you can still find NEW Schneider 150 Xenars!
 

carstenw

Active member
These lenses are interesting, and I would love to experiment with some older glass with different rendering, but I thought I would start with a sharp, modern wide and a slight tele, the same setup as I have with my Contax 645: 35, 120. That way I can transition my project into 4x5 without any impact on the look. I do find that I need a wide quite often, although the Contax 35 is a little wider than necessary. Probably a Contax 45 lens would do, so I thought the 90 would be good. I could imagine 105, although I need to make a little diagram to visualize the angle subtended, but 135 is just loads narrower than the 90, and was going to be my in-between lens if I ever found myself with too large a gap from 90 to 210.

I will try out the f/5.6-f/8 on the Contax 645 and see what I think, but even the 120/4 Makro I find tricky to focus accurately for some of my shots. As mentioned earlier, for me there is no particular reason to go for a smaller lens, since I will only carry two, and initially exclusively for shorter trips. Additionally, although the Grandagon-N and SAXL lenses are more expensive, they are not all that much money, compared to what I am used to for MF and Leica M. If I could just sell my Hartblei, I would be covered for all of this with needing to lay out any more money.

If this all gets too complicated and I cannot make up my mind, I might just start with the lens I have, the Schneider 210mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar, and see how all of this comes together, before deciding on which wide I want.

Does anyone have any tips for good places to look for LF lenses, preferably in Europe? I am looking on eBay and also in ffordes and keh, as well as the B&S here and on largeformatphotography. Is there anywhere else I should be browsing on a regular basis?
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Carsten,

FWIW, a 90 on 4x5 is roughly equal to a 27mm on 35mm... 120 is roughly a 36, a 150 ~~ 45, a 180 ~~ 54, a 210 ~~ 63, 240 a 72 and 300 a 90. 75 is a 22, 65 ~~ a 29, 55 a 16 and 47 a 14. So the 35 on MF is more like a 20 and a 40 is more like a 24. So in 4x5 you probably want a 75 or 80 for the wide end and your MF 120 is probably more like a 240.
 

carstenw

Active member
Sorry, I changed my 40 to 45, messing up your post :)

I understand from your earlier comments that in spite of calculations, the wides feel wider and the longs feel longer on LF, so I was going to relax my extremes a little. 90/210 seems a nice and popular spacing for 4x5 in any case, and the slight change in view might even be a welcome minor change. I am not worried about that. The 75 gets hard to get significant movement with, and the 240s seem to mostly come in larger shutters, so I chose the 90/210 for more flexibility. A 135 would be a nice lens in the middle, being roughly 1.5x more than the 90 and less than the 210. If I really want to get fiddly, I could add a 110/150 pair instead of the 135, but to be honest, I don't want to carry that much and work with so many focal lengths.

I find myself using fewer and fewer lenses with time, so I thought that I would start with the duo and see how I get along, leaving a comfortable spot in the middle for a third lens just in case. I can always add a 65/75 and 300 later if I really need more range.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I totally agree with that, just didn't want you to be surprised if you started to measure ;)

If I were getting back into 4x5 LF, my short list for lenses would be a Schneider 75mm f8 SA MC, a Schneider 110 SSXL, 150 APO Symmar L, and a Xenar 210. I would then scout for a Xenar 105 -- hard to find though and I might settle for a 135 or an older 125~135 Tessar just for the different look. I would later add a 305 G-Claron. So 6 lenses total, and I know I'd use the 4 middle ones all regularly and why I'd recommend going for the f8 wide to begin with :D.
 

carstenw

Active member
No, don't worry, I am going into this eyes wide open. I did do a little diagram to see if 4x5 were cropped to 645 or 135 format, what would be the equivalent lenses, and then relaxed slightly. 75/240 would have been what I should have taken, I suppose, but I rarely need the full width of the Contax 35, and on the long end I can walk, with my current subject matter. So you see, I took that part of your message to heart.

The damn thing about discussing these things with you is that in the end, you are pretty much always right :) I am going to play stubborn a little longer on the issue of a fast 90 and see where that gets me, but down the line, who knows, I might sell and pick up an f/8 :)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The damn thing about discussing these things with you is that in the end, you are pretty much always right :)
I think it's more a case of any typical advanced user migrating to the same position after several months of trial and error. We pretty much all want the same thing -- an appropriate spread of focals that get the job done in the most convenient and cost-efficient fashion.

From that, you'd be amazed how similar the contents of experienced shooter's gear bags are. Guy and I inadvertently grabbed each other's packs on the Florida workshop and shot for an entire morning. It wasn't until I went looking for my spare battery and found it in a different compartment than where I normally put it that we realized the swap. Ken Doo and I have had several laughs together when discussing the nearly identical contents of our primary gear bags, and that's with the Phase kit and the Canon kit, and honestly, pretty soon to be the GF1 kit!
 

carstenw

Active member
Guy and I inadvertently grabbed each other's packs on the Florida workshop and shot for an entire morning. It wasn't until I went looking for my spare battery and found it in a different compartment than where I normally put it that we realized the swap.
Haha, that is hilarious :ROTFL: Maybe you might also have noticed when you used each other's iPhones to call home and got the wrong wife/partner :)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Haha, that is hilarious :ROTFL: Maybe you might also have noticed when you used each other's iPhones to call home and got the wrong wife/partner :)
Nope -- mine's in a very different case and I keep it my pocket :D (And in both of our cases it is wives and kids.)
 

henningw

Member
As I do architectural photography the 90 has been one of my mainstays. I've used many of the available 90's, including the Schneiders, Nikkors, Rodagons and Fuji's.

Of the faster ones, the best one in my opinion is the 90XL. It has by far the largest image circle and its ultimate performance is the highest. But it's rather big and filters are a problem.

The f/4.5's from Rodenstock and Nikon are really not that good. The performance at f/4.5 is far enough off the optimum that even focussing and composing can lead to misinformation. They really have to be used at f/16 thru 32. The f/5.6's from Schneider and Fuji are a bit better, but still not that good. They're best set to f/8 for viewing and composing. Their performance at f11 through 32 is then very good. The f/6.8 Rodenstock is just about the poorest; it's just not a modern formula and it shows. Most of the f/8's are similar, but have somewhat better performance than the f/6.8 Rodenstock.

The only one that's different, and in my opinion one of the most overlooked lenses is the f/8 Nikkor. Nikon was the only manufacturer to produce an f/8 lens with the same coverage as its own f/4.5 and other's f/4.5 and f/5.6 lenses. It (and the f/8 120 and 150 Nikkor wides) use essentially the same formula as was used by other's for the faster lenses, but it's slightly better corrected.

So in the f/8 Nikkor you get one of the best performing lenses which is quite useable already at f/11, has the coverage of the faster lenses, has excellent overall performance across the field between f/11 thru 32 and is relatively light weight.

So my choice would be between the Schneider 90XL (if you need the maximum coverage) or the Nikkor f/8 if you want something less expensive and a lot smaller. Those two are the class of the field.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Henning
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I'd agree with almost all of that, except that I sold my f8 Nikkor when I finally found a Sinar-branded 09 SA MC. Many chalk it up to urban legend that the Sinar and Linhof (Technika) branded versions of the Schnieder and Rodenstock lens line were superior performers due to being hand-selected at the factory. In my case, I owned three such lenses and they were all my top performers of all time in their respective focal ranges -- 65, 75 and 90 SA MC's.
 
Top