Which Wide Angle Lense for architecture and interiorgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I am looking for wide angle lens for architecture and interior. I am using Schneider Apo-Symmar 210/5.6 and Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 135/5.6, Super Angulon 90/5.6XL, but I want more wide like 65mm or 75mm. Which angle lens is better in quality? Also, I want to know which brand - Schneider, Rodenstock & Nikon - wide angle lens is best for architecture and interior. If you have any advice for this, please tell me about it. Thanks. www.welcome.to/studionaki
-- NHP (email@example.com), July 14, 2000
I don't think you will notice a significant difference in quality among any contemmporary lenses. They are all very good. For what it is worth, I use a 72mm Schneider XL Super Angulon. I found the 90mm too constricting. The 72mm covers a 5x7 format witha lot of movemoents. I use Wisner Tech field cameras, not know for being Wide Angle friendly, and with a WA bellows have had no problems with it. I find the lens sharp, forgiving and relativel easy to use. Downside--Filters are expensive, if you need them, and the lens is not small, despite the tiny shutter it is housed in. But it is very useful.
Note: I shoot traditional architecture, as well as grain elevators, interiors of churches, old and new, in color and B/w. Despite the drawbacks, I love the lens. Bob
-- Bob Moulton (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 14, 2000.
The 65, and 75 mm wide angles require use of extra wide center filters, with attendant 2 f-stop loss. Without a center filter, the drop off is especially noticeable with maximum lens shift. I do not know whether the 72XL requires a center filter. You may want to consider the Linhof 65 mm wide angle lens, with Prontor shutter, a combination which goes for around $3600 at BHPhoto. I have not read anything about whether Linhof's lenses are noticeably superior in contrast to those sold under trade names of Rodenstock, Schneider, Calumet, and
-- David Caldwell (email@example.com), July 15, 2000.
You may want to consider the Linhof 65 mm wide angle lens, with Prontor shutter, a combination which goes for around $3600 at BHPhoto. I have not read anything about whether Linhof's lenses are noticeably superior in contrast to those sold under trade names of Rodenstock, Schneider, Calumet, and Niko
-- David Caldwell (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 15, 2000.
Rodenstock's 75/f4.5 is a superb lens and will allow about 29mm rise on the horizontal and about 25mm on the vertical on a 45 format. It is quite a compact lens given the aperture and will take 67mm screw-in filters. On 45 this focal length is equiv. to approx. a 24mm in the 35mm format. It is a lens I use a lot both for architecture and landscape especially when I'm using a 6x9cm back when plenty of movement is required. One shouldn't ogle over equipment but I've always felt that this lens is so beautifully made it would make a fine ornament. Regards, Trevor
-- Trevor Crone (email@example.com), July 15, 2000.
" You may want to consider the Linhof 65 mm wide angle lens, with Prontor shutter, a combination which goes for around $3600 at BHPhoto."
This lens only works on the TK and won't fit on many other cameras or cameras that require a recessed board for this focal length.
-- Bob Salomon (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 15, 2000.
There is a lens made in Germany, the Doktor 47mm, which is about as wide as you can get. It covers 5x4 but with very little scope for movements. Using a normal bag bellows with the Sinar it needs a recessed lens mount. Hope this helps.
-- Garry Edwards (email@example.com), July 15, 2000.
In the 4X5 format (including only the useable area and not the area covered by the holder's flanges), the diagonal is approximately 150mm, thus half of that is 75mm. The diagonal of the 35mm format is 43mm (not 50mm), thus, half of that is 21,5 mm. Accordingly, the 75mm lens in LF lens is equivalent to a 21.5mm lens on a 35, not 24mm. For full coverage 4X5, the widest-angle lens available is the 47mm Super Angulon XL. With this lens, however, tilts and shifts are very restricted or almost nil. Because tilts and shifts are essential to most architectural photography, your options are in longer lenses. Unfortunately, the next focal length, the super Angulon XL 58mm has, surprisingly, the same size of image circle (166mm) as the 47mm XL. The 65mm Super Angulon has a slightly larger image circle, 170mm but this also means quite restricted movements. With the 72mm Super Angulon XL you now have a fairly large IC of 226 mm., quite ample for architectural work. The SA 75mm has an IC of 198mm, adequate but less than the 72mm XL; however the 75mm does not require the humongous 105mm filters needed by the 72mm. I have mentioned Schneider lenses. Rodenstock's Grandagon 75mm F4.5 has similar coverage as the corresponding Schneider. From the foregoing, the 72mm XL may be the ideal wide-angle lens for architectural work, giving you a wide range of movements and ample coverage. Having either the 72 or 75mm lenses makes the next logical choice the 110mm, as the 90mm would be too close in coverage to the others to justify it.
-- Julio Fernandez (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 16, 2000.
Julio, you can do the math until your face turns blue, but in the real world as measured by the horizontal angle of coverage on film, the coverage of a 65mm lens on a 4x5 piece of film more closely corresponds to that of a 20mm or a 21mm focal length lens on a standard (24x36mm) negative or transparency.
As for me, I make the jump from 90mm down to a 65mm . Both of my wide angles are Rodenstock Grandagons and they are superb lenses. I'd like to have a 75mm or a 72mm in my kit as well but budgets are budgets and there is always cropping. I use a Heliopan center weighted filter on the 90mm f/4.5 when i have a large amount of shift or when I use it on my 6x17cm V-Pan but otherwise I haven't really seen a need for it. I don't use a CWF on the 65mm f/ 4.5 Grandagon.
BTW, when shopping for the 65mm I compared ithe Rodenstock 65mm f/4.5 Grandagon to a Schneider 65mm f/5.6 Super Angulon: The Schneider I tested really needed the CWF while the Grandagon didn't. One thing to keep in mind is that with many interior or even exterior architectural photographs are made at closer than infinity focus points. Because the lens is a little further from the film plane, the image circle projected by the lens may be just large enough to eliminate the need for a CWF, but you should test this for yourself.
-- Ellis Vener (email@example.com), July 17, 2000.
Looking at your website - Impressive! -, I think you need a large image circle wide angle such as the SA 72 XL. I personally have a 47 XL and a Nikkor SW 65, both excellent and capable of using the same center filter, but with little possibilities of movements. I use them more on 120 film. Next to the 72 XL would be a 47 XL if you ever feel the need for such extreme lens. Be aware though that with such lenses, any object placed too close to the camera in the corners of the frame will be considerably distorted, especially if you use movements.
-- Paul Schilliger (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 17, 2000.
As others have said, Schneider's SA 72XL. It's an incredible lens and alows plenty of movement. I recommend getting the center filter. Badger Graphics and Robert White in the UK have good prices.
-- Pete Caluori (email@example.com), July 18, 2000.
Ellis: According to your own definitions, a 65mm lens is equivalent to 19.5mm in the 35mm format, based on the angles. I think your point is that the angle spanning the wider dimension parallel to one of the sides provides a better way of comparing focal lengths than the angle subtended by the diagonal. For this to be valid, the height of the image (assuming landscape format) has no significance and only the horizontal dimension is of any visual consequence. You did raise an interesting issue that deserves some thought, and I am glad you did.
-- Julio Fernandez (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 18, 2000.