Super Angulon VS Kodak widefield Ektargreenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I just bought my first 4X5 (Linhof III) with a 90mm SA and have a couple questions (I have not even tried it yet). I need mine to be fairly light, so I was thinking of loosing the SA and getting a Kodak Widefield Ektar 100. Would there be much difference in optical quality (I have heard the Kodak is very, very good). The Kodak is about 1/3 the size! Also how much can you stop the SA down before the diffraction gets so bad you just can't live with it (printing say to 16x 20). I know Ansel sometimes shot at f/64, but that was B&W. If I do this with color, would it be a waste? (need lots of D of F). Thanks
-- Ken Dunn (email@example.com), March 29, 1999
You need a book on 4x5 and how to manage depth of field. Ususally i don't go below f/32 for landscape work with wide angle lenses. What are you shooting that you need so much depth of field?
-- Ellis (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 29, 1999.
I almost exclusively shoot with my Kodak 135 WF Ektar. It's an extremely sharp lens and I routinely shoot at f/32. Diffraction causes lots of problems in B&W as well as color but I have not noticed any problems. The 100mm & 135mm only stop down to f/32. The WF's are wonderfully light and sharp but you have to hunt for one in mint condition.
-- Brian Jefferis (email@example.com), March 29, 1999.
Ken- I'll second Ellis on the fact that you should read up on controlling DOF with a view camera. Also, with larger formats a smaller aperture is acceptable since you're not going to enlarge as much for a given print size (16x20 from 4x5 is like 4x6 from 35mm). I also don't generally go below f/32 though because with tilts you won't need to. As far as the original question, I've got an SA 90/8 which is quite portable IMO. Do you have the SA90/5.6?
-- Lanier Benkard (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 29, 1999.
Tech III owner here... I love the 90 perspective, so I wouldn't give up my 90 for anything. I have an old 90 6.8 angulon that is fine for black and white and while I wish I had more coverage on 10 percent of the shots I couldn't fold a 5.6xl inside the body of the tech not that I wouldn't mind having one. I've not noticed any diffraction at 32 but rarely need anything but 16 even with slight moves. Dof may not be as important as portability to you so rethink.
-- Trib (email@example.com), March 29, 1999.
Only slightly off-topic, but I do love my Ektars, both Commercial and Wide Field. Yes I do have more modern lenses, but frankly, the super Schneiders are just TOO sharp for me. I love both my 190 Wide Field and 250 Wide Field especially. Both are dandy on 8x10. I do use the modern lenses on 4x5, but that's for work and the 8x10 is for fun. Dick Fish/Smith College
-- Dick Fish (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 29, 1999.