6x9 wide angle?

[schaubild]

The facts are dividing the focal length in mm by the diagonal of the film frame. For the Mamiya that would be 43/89,3 = 0,48 The Biogon on the Hasselblad 38/79 = 0,48. The Biogon on the special Alpa 44x66 mm holder 38/79 = 0,48. The Fuji 690 GSW 65/99 = 0.65 at most as I''m not sure the frame length is 82 mm. The customised Fuji 690 with the SA 47 mm 47/99 = 0,475. It is the original Brooks Veriwide that really beats that 0.48 ratio of the Mamiya with 47/115 = 0,41 if that frame length really is 100 mm. All more or less in the spirit of this thread. Relatively compact, MF and wide angle. The bigger Mamiya Press with the 50 mm lens on 6x9 (56 x 82 mm) = 0,50, the Koni Omega 56 mm on 6x7 even more.

Of course the Fotoman, Linhof, etc panorama cameras can go beyond that ratio. Not to mention the Cirkut concepts like the Voyageur that works with 120 film.

In readily available, not breaking the bank, MF, more or less compact and very wide, quality image, the Mamiya 7 II with a 43 mm lens is the obvious answer.


Ernst Dinkla

Sorry, read the wrong message. From a view-angle point of view you're right. I received this as a quality related message, therefore the stiff answer

The Biogon for Alpa is no longer produced, but there are the Super Angulon XL 38mm (image circle of 96/139 mm (f5.6/f22)), the Alpar 35mm (image circle of 105/120 (f11/f22)) and the Helvetar 48 mm (image circle of 98/123mm (f5.6/f22)), all three easily cover 6x9. And the Switar 36mm with it's image circle of 90mm can be used on 6x7; direct comparisons against a Biogon have shown that this lens is at least as good, even full open. Just a side remark.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about a wideangle folder designed for the purpose, not adapting an existing folder. Adapting an existing folder would require some surgery. Since in general there aren't compact wide retrofocus lenses with sufficient flange to film distance that cover 6x9 and could replace a standard 100mm or 105mm lens, a more likely adaptation would involve some sort of bracket that could put the lens farther back and still fold with the camera.

One other possibility might be afocal adapter lenses (wide and tele converters). I've occasionally seen such things for older fixed lens cameras, but they are not usually considered to be of good optical quality.

Well, the companies making folders back then were motivated by the same thing then that camera manufacturers are now -- making money. If they didn't do it, then there must not have been much of a market for it. The technology certainly existed. If Graphlex could put a wide angle lens on a baby Speed Graphic, then Voigtlander could certainly have put one on yet another variety of Bessa.

Yes, I have accessory lenses for a couple of my Yashicas and for an Argus C-3 "brick." Using them is more trouble than they are worth and they don't work very well. Also, I can easily envision someone forgetting to remove one from his folder and attempting to fold it up, clawing the hell out of the lens.

 

[marvin123]

Re: 6x9 wide angle

Re: 6x9 wide angle

Anyone know of an inexpensive wide-angle lens? Can use something old, or something designed for medium format. Currently have a 90mm but that is not wide enough in the 6x9 format. Something in the 50-60mm range would be good.
Are there any wide-angle barrel lenses available?



-------------------------
Marvin


Wide Circles

 

[pagpow]

take a look here for a start

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00IKzu

 

[Rogier]

Very interesting camera however it not quite a folder camera. At least I don't see myself putting this one in my pocket...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cheap WA lenses

The small, cheap 65/6.8 Angulon (not Super) will JUST cover 6x9; the 65/8 (bigger, but still not expensive) does so easily. So will the 47 SA, f/8 or f/5.6, though the f/8 was a significantly inferior lens: Linhof and Professional once rejected 11 out of 12 of a batch they ordered (decades ago) and Sir Kenneth Corfielld used to test them indivdually for use on the Corfield WA67.

Why no 'classic' WA folders

The big objection to a WA folder is that WA lenses must be held more precisely, relative to the film plane, than longer lenses. Struts therefore need to be stronger and less prone to wear and play than if you have a longer lens. The 'baby' Linhof could handle a 65mm, but with the 47mm you needed a lens in a focusing mount and the bellows 'foot' on the back rails (I've had 65 Angulon and SA and 47/5.6 SA on mine). This is a major reason why they were never made in the classical days of folders, though there was the rigid-bodied Envoy Wide-Angle: http://www.gaspweb.co.uk/cameras/envoy.html

(I always wanted one, but they were absurdly expensive and the 64mm lens, probably by Wray, was somewhat lacking in contrast in my friends' examples)

Also, looking at the design of most folders, I suspect that the size of the trapdoor (dictated by the size of the body itself) might mean that the edge of the trapdoor might get into shot even with a 65; this is why 'baby' Linhofs had a drop bed, though of course the trapdoor is much bigger.

Film flatness

Again, as others have remarked, film flatness varies widely with RF backs and folders, and most folders are at the poor end when compared with most backs. Also, the bigger the format, the harder it is to ensure flatness. This is why, arguably, you can get better sharpness from 6x9 cropped to 4.5x9 than from 6x12 (though the bigger the enlargement, the more the 6x12 will score on tonality). Flatness is more important with WA lenses than with longer ones, of course.

In other words, a 6x9 WA is always likely to be a lot bigger and heavier than a conventional folder, though a doppel-klapp design (like a Plaubel W67 with 55 Nikkor, apparently made by Konica) offers one way around it.

D-I-Y Wide-Angles

A friend of mine, the late Colin Glanfield, built quite a lot of ultra-wides, and his approach was to take a roll-film back and build a 'cone' on the front with a WA lens in a focusing mount -- or on one occasion, set at the hyperfocal distance for f/11.

The ultimate solution: Alpa

I use an Alpa 12 WA with the Biogon on 66x44 (21mm equivalent on 35mm) and my wife uses the 35/5.6 Apo-Grandagon on 6x9cm (15mm equivalent) with her 12 S/WA. The Alpa 12 TC is more compact than either, and takes the same lenses and backs, but although it is cheaper, it is still alarmingly expensive and not pocketable unless you have REALLY BIG pockets: http://www.alpa.ch/index.php?path=products/cameras&detailpage=135

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

The ultimate solution could be as well a Horseman SW 612 Pro with a 35mm Grandagon and a 6x9 back. Or a 6x12 back if you need an even wider angle. And it doesn't require deep pockets as an Alpa <sigh>

On the other hand a view camera like the Arca Swiss F line compact 6x9 would the the non plus ultra in terms of versatility - folded it's smaller than one of my Fujis.

The Horseman is, if I recall (I've not used one for years) bigger than a TC, but I'd certainly agree that it will achieve much the same thing.

Rather than Arca Swiss, look at Toho. http://www.toho-machine.co.jp/FC-45Mini.htm. Even smaller and lighter. In order to get movements with the 47mm you need the eccentric lens panel, but you can then use 47mm to 210mm, with movements, on rollfilm formats up to 6x12 or of course 4x5 inch/9x12cm. It takes about as long to assemble as the Arca-Swiss does to unfold, but a rigid-body (Alpa, Horseman, Envoy...) will always be quicker.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The ultimate solution could be as well a Horseman SW 612 Pro with a 35mm Grandagon and a 6x9 back. Or a 6x12 back if you need an even wider angle. And it doesn't require deep pockets as an Alpa <sigh>

On the other hand a view camera like the Arca Swiss F line compact 6x9 would the the non plus ultra in terms of versatility - folded it's smaller than one of my Fujis.

The Horseman is, if I recall (I've not used one for years) bigger than a TC, but I'd certainly agree that it will achieve much the same thing, and cheaper.

Rather than Arca Swiss, look at Toho. http://www.toho-machine.co.jp/FC-45Mini.htm. Even smaller and lighter. In order to get movements with the 47mm you need the eccentric lens panel, but you can then use 47mm to 210mm, with movements, on rollfilm formats up to 6x12 or of course 4x5 inch/9x12cm. It takes about as long to assemble as the Arca-Swiss does to unfold, but a rigid-body (Alpa, Horseman, Envoy...) will always be quicker.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Goldfarb]

The widest lens that Linhof supplied for the 2x3" Technika was the 53mm Biogon, I believe. I have a 55mm/4.5 Apo-Grandagon, cammed, for mine.

Some of the latest LF wide lenses are slightly retrofocus, so it might be possible to get a 47mm SA-XL or 45mm Apo-Grandagon on the main rail, maybe with a recessed lensboard, though the recessed Tech 23 boards I've seen are only about 5mm recessed. Have you looked into this, by chance, Roger? Otherwise, the solution for the 35-47mm lenses is a focus mount, as you say, if the mount is small enough to fit on the board and not interfere with the front standard.

Then again, if I know I'm going wide, I can always shoot the 55mm Apo-Grandagon on my 4x5" Technika, which is probably a better solution anyway. It's good, I think, to have a larger negative to capture all the information a wide lens can take in.