Dwig
Well-known
I used a 90mm Angulon for years and have the same opinion. It was a great companion for the feather-light wooden field camera I used. Angulons don't have quite the coverage that the Super Angulons have (~5 degrees less) but they don't suffer from the rather significant light falloff that plagues the SAs. I also was extremely pleased with the results from my 180 f/5.6 Nikkor-W.
A word of warning about buy and Angulon, though. The Angulons were made for a very very long time. Many, perhaps most, were uncoated and can date from the first quarter of the 20th century. The one I used was a very late sample from probably the late '50s, coated and in a modern Compur shutter. If you get one be sure to get a modern sample.
raid
Dad Photographer
My only lens is a Schneider convertible lens.
brusby
Well-known
Used to use 90mm and 65mm Super Angulons on 4x5 for architectural stuff with great results. If I remember correctly the 65mm coverage didn't quite extend all the way to the corners, but maybe I'm thinking of 5x7.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There are so many different lenses for so many different purposes that it's impossible to say. In 300mm lenses alone ('standard' on 8x10), there's an immense difference between my f/3.5 Tessar and my f/9 Nikkor, but they both have their uses. My favourite lens for portraiture on 8x10 is a 21 inch (533mm) f/7.7 Ross. And so forth.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
marduk
Well-known
Every LF lens I tried was wonderful, even thought I prefer more gentle color rendering of German lenses to Japanese ones. I have a Fujinon-C 300/8.5 and love it, but my ultimate lens is 120mm Super Symmar HM. Also have a Grandagon-N 75/6.8 on the shelf, which I didn't have time to try yet. Chamonix 45N-1 takes anything from 75 to 300mm on standard bellows.
goamules
Well-known
I personally like the pre Civil War Petzval lenses, but also shoot lenses up until the 1940s on LF. Here was a recent haul I got:
The thing about LF is each lens has very distinct effects; they're all different. But for a great, sharp, contrasty lens that can be found in shutters (I shoot a lot of wetplate and don't need shutters), look at the Goerz Dagors. I have about 6 and love them. I also like the exotic soft focus lenses, the Wollensak Verito is about the easiest to find, and is a very fine lens. (Mostly) Dagors in Volute shutters:
The thing about LF is each lens has very distinct effects; they're all different. But for a great, sharp, contrasty lens that can be found in shutters (I shoot a lot of wetplate and don't need shutters), look at the Goerz Dagors. I have about 6 and love them. I also like the exotic soft focus lenses, the Wollensak Verito is about the easiest to find, and is a very fine lens. (Mostly) Dagors in Volute shutters:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Glad that I'm not the only one here getting GAS attacks from LF lenses (hahaha).
I actually like the result from my Gundlach Radar 304.6mm f/4.5 that came with my 8x10 B&J.
I just need to use it more.
I actually like the result from my Gundlach Radar 304.6mm f/4.5 that came with my 8x10 B&J.
I just need to use it more.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
The current crop of Rodenstock glass, both the Digaron, as well as the updated Apo Grandagon/N and Apo Sironar S glass, is really stunning.
I have many lenses I like for a particular look, but for sheer performance, they are just blowing me away. Especially if anyone mixes digital backs in with their film work.
I have many lenses I like for a particular look, but for sheer performance, they are just blowing me away. Especially if anyone mixes digital backs in with their film work.
1joel1
Well-known
The Fuji "A" series are the most underrated and greatest bang for the buck LF lenses available IMHO.
Joel
Joel
Nokton48
Veteran
I have the complete set of lenses that were offered by Sinar for their Norma cameras. The Schneider Angulons, Super Angulons, Rodenstock Apo-Ronars, Rodenstock Imagons (soft focus), Schneider Symmars, and a few Swiss Kern Arau Process lenses.
For my Plaubel Makiflexes, I have a complete set of Schneider Xenars, Tele-Xenars, and Rodenstock Imagons.
All these lenses are 1950's-1970's vintage. All are great performers.
For my Plaubel Makiflexes, I have a complete set of Schneider Xenars, Tele-Xenars, and Rodenstock Imagons.
All these lenses are 1950's-1970's vintage. All are great performers.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
goamules
Well-known
I bet they are very contrasty and nice. But I've found ALL large format blows away 35mm and "tiny format", even when I shoot 100 year old lenses, an 8x10 contact print is amazing. 35mm is basically nowhere near the quality, tone, etc., but it's nice to have a roll of 36 shots inside the camera, instead of all the holders and junk for LF!
oftheherd
Veteran
How do you find it. I have one that I haven't used yet.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
On film, certainly. And I agree re:35mm... Digital MF and LF backs are harsh critics of those old lenses though - I love them too (Some old Goertz Dagors and Red dot artars, in the mix of what I use), but they are not the right match for large format digital. So if we're talking pure performance (what I assumed the OP was after), I have to give the nod to these more current designs.
goamules
Well-known
Why would anyone shoot "large format digital?" Aren't the backs still many thousands of dollars? The lenses, cameras, movements, printing paper, everything about the process was made for one thing only - Film. And the results on film are outstanding. LF film tonality, dynamic range, and antique lenses give all the performance I need.
I leave the digital for the small cameras, but even the pro DSLRs would be cheaper than trying to make a digital camera out of a 75 year old wooden 8x10 camera. Right? Antique LF lenses do things on film that you cannot replicate with the latest, greatest, contrastyest modern lenses and digital sensors. To me, trying to combine them is like taking a beautiful 1939 Ford coupe, and chopping it and putting a Corvette engine in it. It's done....but it's not for me.
goamules
Well-known
Here's an 8x10 contact print on FP-4 done with a 60 year old Dagor. On the print you can count individual blades of grass out in the little clearing slightly left of center. But I usually shoot soft focus, petzvals, and other "affects" lenses, I'm not into pixel peeping.
Matus
Well-known
3 of my 4 LF lenses are in my opinion 'top notch':
- Fujinon 125/5.6 CM-W (the latest generation from Fujinon) - a rather rare lens, but very sharp and with good coverage.
- Fujinon A 240/9 (tiny and SHARP). Coverage is 'unlimited' on 4x5
- Grandagon-N 75/4.5 - this lens is incredibly sharp, no ghosts and no distortion. Allows for quite some movements. I would advice to use center-filter with E6 films - in particular when using shift movements.
- Fujinon 125/5.6 CM-W (the latest generation from Fujinon) - a rather rare lens, but very sharp and with good coverage.
- Fujinon A 240/9 (tiny and SHARP). Coverage is 'unlimited' on 4x5
- Grandagon-N 75/4.5 - this lens is incredibly sharp, no ghosts and no distortion. Allows for quite some movements. I would advice to use center-filter with E6 films - in particular when using shift movements.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
While I am not well versed on vintage LF lenses, you cannoy\t go wrong with either Schneider or Rodenstock lenses. Nikon glass is nothing to scoff at, either.
stompyq
Well-known
God that Fuji 240A and 75mm grandagon are incredible. I totally agree with you
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Everyone's needs are different. That you don't see a need for it, doesn't mean someone else will not. Architectural photographers, in particular, utilize this for a very technically demanding clientele. It is expensive, more expensive than my clients will currently support, and so I shoot mostly film, or rent when I need a digital solution. But the need is there, and those vintage lenses, as great as they are, are not "top notch LF lenses" by the technical standards demanded for that work.
I still love them, but for personal work only.